Very simple proofs that Calculus and Differentials do not work in reality, but at best work only in abstract frameworks

[Wade12345]

Infinite Number Fallacy

There is only one infinite entity in reality, and that is The True Creator, The First Cause. Everything else is provably FINITE.

You cannot empirically PROVE that any number in mathematics is truly "Infinite" anyway, not even as an abstract, because nobody can ever count to an infinite number to verify that it is infinite. Since both Calculus and Differentials rely heavily on the concept of "infinite numbers" and even the more ridiculous concept of "extended real numbers greater than infinite" this proves both of those mathematical endeavors are false.

Zero as a Number Fallacy

Zero is not a Counting Number, and in reality it is not a Number at all. Zero on a line graph is not a "Number" it is a HOLE IN THE GRAPH. Therefore lines cannot cross the X and Y axis in reality in a Cartesian coordinate system, and in a polar coordinate system there are no negative numbers nor zero, there is only an "Origin".

[Red-Blaze]

First the infinate number dose work in reality, as for as small as you go on an atom there will always be something smaller building it, to infinity, even if we dont have the tools to see it, its there, and is non finate becouse eveythingbis made of something so no matter how small you go there will always be smaller

Anyway this stuff are suppose to be therotical no? like you trying to prove that something not connected to reailty is not connected to reailty? I am a little lost

[Wade12345]

Wrong. We have already proven there is nothing beyond the Quark level and there is nothing smaller than the Planck Number. There are no particles smaller than Planck length and EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS DEAD WRONG. Even though most physicists do not know this, Einsteins Version of Relativity requires the Universe to be continuous. THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT CONTINUOUS. THE REAL UNIVERSE IS QUANTUM, WHICH THE GREEKS PROVED OVER 2400 YEARS AGO THAT WAS THE CASE.

THE REAL UNIVERSE "SKIPS' FROM ONE PLANCK LENGTH TO THE NEXT PLANCK LENGTH WITHOUT EXISTING BETWEEN THOSE TWO POINTS. THAT IS THE CASE FOR EVERY PARTICE WHETHER ITS' A QUARK, MUON, GLUON, PION, LEPTON, MESON, ETC.

THERE ARE NO CONTINUOUS CURVES IN THE REAL WORLD, A ND THEREFORE CALCULUS AND DIFFERENTIALS ARE "FALSE SCIENCES" AND SO IS GENERAL RELATIVITY, BECAUSE GENERAL RELATIVITY RELIES HEAVILY ON THE CONTINUITY OF A SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM.

[Wade12345]

We are incorrectly taught that "irrational numbers" such as "Pi" can have an infinite number of decimal places, but that is not true either.

In the real Universe, no number can have a decimal component smaller than Planck Length, therefore there are no such things as Irrational numbers in the real Universe. Every number in the real universe is required to be an exact even multiple of Planck Length.

[Wade12345]

Even though an alleged Differential has been written which supposedly predicts the weather for the entire planet, the national weather service and IBM and the Weather Channel don't use that to predict the weather either.

They use a "Quasi-Quantum" matrix in 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time, and each second they increment the convection and the wind speed and direction by one grid space (or more if the wind is too fast for one grid space). So they use a 3 dimensional grid and every second increment the cloud formations and the angle of sunlight, etc, to forecast the weather on the Earth.

The Super-Computers do NOT use a continuous differential to forecast the weather. Nobody even knows how to program that into the computer, and even if they did, it would take more cmputing power than simply using 3rd grade math to increment a matrix.

The Weather is actually Quantum in nature too, they just don't know how to relate Quarks, Spintronics, and Planck Length to tornadoes and Hurricanes yet. (Dr. Jeff Masters et al).

[Wade12345]

One Reason computers have not improved much in the past 20 years is IBM hit a physical limit back then at around 7nanometer process. The Transistor Gates at scales smaller than that do not work correctly, because Electrons Quantum Tunnel at scales smaller than that, so they "skip over" the electrical resistor into the opposite wire across the gate, without ever existing inside the gate. This is Quantum Tunneling/Teleportation.

IBM MAY have finally found a way around this, as they are now claiming they MAY have a way to make a transistor as small as 1nanometer which somehow prevents the electron from Quantum Tunneling. If this is true, then Moore's Law will resume for at least one more "generation" of computers.

The point is electrons do not move "continuously" through a circuit, not even an ideal circuit. Electrons move by quantum teleportation from one atom to the next atom without existing anywhere between the two atoms, except in Plasma and a few other circumstances, and even then it is Quantum in nature.

[Wade12345]

By the way, this is the Cliff Notes. To fully understand this you'd need to take a Theoretical Electrical Circuits course in University and also the Hands-On Electrical Circuits course.

In any case, electrons do not move continuously, and neither does anything else, but electrons are notorious for their Quantum behaviors. The electron orbital model of the Atom we were all taught in the 3rd grade is actually WRONG. Electrons are now thought to exist in a "Probability Cloud" distributed around the Atom and it is not all spherical shells. the P orbitas are spherical, but the others are much more complicated than that. The point is the Electron is QUANTUM and it's position is NOT DETERMINED until it is observed by a Sentient being, which then "Collapses the Wave Function" for that event. The electron is PROBABLY where you think it is, but there is always a tiny chance that it is somewhere else in the room with you, and there is always a tiny chance it's even beyond the wall to your left and in the room beyond that wall, and even smaller chance the electron is a Mile down the street for some reason you couldn't possibly know or understand.

[Red-Blaze]

Anyway even if all this is true
1. is god then a human? I mean if we got it, guess his not all that smart, as well as if everything is finite guess we can close research some day
Honestly I still hold up that sooner or later someone go deeper, or find there not really teleporting but just moving too fast or just something tiny tiny is moving and looks like it or something
Maybe I just don't know it, and need to learn it, but still

Also, assuming it must be some sentient being to make all this limits them to our demantion, I mean in an ifinite possiblity of prelal universes this may just be one that fit
And it seems saintent just becouse we really want to think it is looking with the limits of our demantion

[Wade12345]

Occam's Razor is a principle which states that the simplest explanation that works is usually the best explanation.

Which explanation is simpler? One Almighty God or an infinite number of parallel universes you will never be able to see?

Besides, the Cosmological Argument proves there is a God no matter how many dimensions may exist and no matter how nested reality may be.

Everything with a beginning has a cause.
The Universe has a beginning.
Therefore the Universe has a cause.

"From nothing comes nothing".
Therefore, No matter how nested reality may be, The First Cause must be self-eternal, otherwise nothing would exist.

The First Cause was not initially motivated by anygthing outside itself, because nothing else existed.
The First Cause must be motivated somehow to effect change, such as Creation of the Universe.
Therefore the First Cause is entirely Self-motivated.

The only thing we know of that can be self-motivated is a Free Moral Agent.
The First Cause is Self-Motivated.
Therefore the First Cause is a Free Moral Agent.

Therefore an intelligent, Almighty God exists and he Created EVERYTHING outside of Himself.

[Red-Blaze]

But your very calculation of what it is is based on the world around you
I mean its like the "the book is right because it says its right"
The math and everything is based on the world around, so taking it back and saying if the world around us has the properties of math it means that there must be someone out there doing it
Because what you used to make it is based on what you used to make it, your self baseicing what you saying on it self
The multiverse is not the thing
Its just that if you say the world is simply a result of a random chance to be the one that this happen, then ya this is the more simple thing then there being an all mighty creature out there setting it all

[Red-Blaze]

Besides saying there nothing smaller for sure is wrong, people used to think atoms where the smallest, and well, we know today that's not true
String theory and outers give the idea of more options of something even smaller, but we can't get there... yet
So beside that will say that placing a proof of god here, if you want to keep believing hope it will not be proved wrong before the end I guess :)
We have very little we can truly say is a fact in the end its all guess.. educated guess but yet guess

[Red-Blaze]

Thanks for MHO

[strateguy632]

smaller? i guess you never heard of string theory. lol

[purplepoppy]

So numbers are not real therefore God must be?
Hilarious.

[Wade12345]

I DIDN'T SAY NUMBERS DIDN'T EXIST.

i SAID INIFINITE NUMBERS DO NOT EXIST, AND I SAID ZERO IS NOT A NUMBER.

THE REASON "DIVISION BY ZERO" IS UNDEFINED IS BECAUSE ZERO IS NOT A NUMBER.

[Wade12345]

Sorry for all caps.

Because the "Collapsed Wave Function" is controlled by the consciousness of the Observer, this means Sentient Observation "Creates" the Universe.

I am Sentient, but I am not The Creator.

Since Collapsing the Wave Function requires a Sentient Observer to Create Observable Reality, this means THE TRUE CREATOR (I. E. THE FIRST CAUSE) IS A SENTIENT BEING.

Therefore God exists, and therefore Ultimately the Wave Function is both Created and Collapsed by God.

I am a sentient being.
My observation CANNOT create reality.
The Wave function requires the CREATOR to Create Reality, and the Wave Function requires the Creator to be Sentient.

[Siri137]

Zero actually is a number, as are the negative numbers, the irrational numbers, and the imaginary ones too. You cannot divide by zero for the simple reason that it represents no value, no quantity at all. You don't understand mathematics at all.

[Wade12345]

@Siri137

lol. Zero is not a number. It is a hole onthe graph.

If you put a dot on a graph where you THINK zero is, you then have one too many dots on the graph. and have irrationally assigned a value to zero.

Zero is a hole on the graph and a curve is not supposed to be able to cross a hole on the graph.

There are no negative numbers in reality. There is no negative energy either. Anti-matter is made of positive energy and produces positve Gamma Ray Photons when it is annihilated. Moreover, you cannot reverse this process either. the "Negative Charge" of Electrons is a misnomer. It does not literally represent a "negative number" in reality. it would be appropriate to reclassify the Charge signs from Positive and Negative to some other notation, because "Negative Charge" actually stores Positive Energy and there is no such thing as Negative Energy in the real Universe. Hawking was again totally wrong about that. He tried to claim Gravity was "Negative Energy one time" but I have proven Gravity Waves decay into POSITIVE energy in the form of INfrared Photons, and a few days ago it was proved indeependently that Gravity itself can decay into Positive Photons directly too.

The Spin of particles is also Up and Down and neither of those represent 'negative energy".

There is no such thing as "Negative Mass" nor "Negative squares" and there is no quantity in physcs represented by 'imaginary numbers" which could not be better represented by an ordinary cycle. Teh only time an imaginary number is used in physics is a PLACE HOLDER for the Binding Energy of one of the flavors of Neutrinos. This does not mean Neutrinos have "Negative Energy' nor "IMaginary Energy" or "imaginary Mass". Neutrinos decay into Positive Energy, eventually.

The entire concept of Negative numbers is a complete fallacy,

[HippieVeganJewslim]

The square root of negative one ain’t real, @purplepoppy. It’s an imaginary number. Still, imaginary numbers are used in astronomy, etc.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

@Wade12345 zero is absolutely a number. 3 is a number. 3-3 also must be a defined number, 0.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Calculus is as real as the Universe. The only part where it might be flawed is that the Universe ain’t shaped Euclidean. Relatively, Einstein’s theories have been tested and proven many times. Yet, advanced calculus probably was invented after relativity, and there are geometries other than Euclidean, like elliptical geometry, which I reckon can combine with calculus.

[exitseven]

There is an infinite number of numbers because whatever number you think is the biggest possible you can alway add one more to it.

[Wade12345]

That is not true at all, and even if i twere true it would be unprovable and at best axiomatic.

Since you cannot count to infinity, you obviously cannot count to infinity plus 1.

since you cannot count to infinity, you cannot empirically prove by experiment that infinity exists as a number, which means you also cannot prove by experiment that Newtons "extended real numbers" are real.

Besides, the real Universe is FINITE and contains a finite number of particles, so even if such an abstract thing as "infinity" existed, it does NOT exist in the real Universe.

The only infinite entity which can PROVABLY exist is The First Cause.

[Wade12345]

By the way, this is not my opinion only.

if you view Rob Bryanton's video, "Imagining the Tenth Dimension" He Proves that everything is Created by "Infinity".

However, for some irrational reason he incorrectly claimed "God" was contained by the seventh dimension and never even tried to explain why he thought that. That is precisely WRONG.

The "Infinity" which does exist is one and the same as Almighty, Omniscient God.

[Red-Blaze]

If to prove anything you need an experiment then nothing can be proven, as there is always a chance that something was wrong or that there will be an experiment that disprove it
The you can always add one is true regardless if it hold to reality or not
If I got all the ships in my world, so I got all of them, then an alien ship comes down and adds one, so now I own all of them till one more, and so on
Its always possible to add one more its just logic

[Wade12345]

@Red-Blaze NOT REALLY. the universe is finite and contains a finite number of particles, albeit God is actually creating more Dark Energy presently, but a MORTAL cannot count to the finite number of particles in the Universe, nevermind the preposterous notion of counting to infinity and beyond.

therefore it seems preposterous to propose the notion of infinite numbers, and doubly preposterous to propose the notion of numbers "greater than infinite" as Newton did.

[Wade12345]

Note:

I am not claiming physics is useless, nor am I claiming models are useless.

I am claiming the Standard Cosmology is not perfect, Einstein is not perfect and the Standard Model of particle physics is not perfect.

For example, the Quark model appears to be somewhat flawed too.

Why do quarks have partial charge and partial spin characteristics if they are 'fundamental"?

If quarks are "fundamental" then their Charges should all be 1 or negative 1 (or whatever since I don't actually believe in negative numbers either). IF quarks are "fundamental" their spins should all by 1 up or 1 down, etc. They should not have fractional charges nor fractional spins, since that is not a fundamental number. They also should not have fractional masses either since fractions are not fundamental numbers.

"Everything begins with ONE." Tatsuo Shimabuku.

So the Quark model is useful, but it is not perfect. In fact, I know of at least two predictions the Quark Model makes which are almost certainly wrong and ridiculous. The Quark Model predicts there should be a 9 strange quark particle called a "Strangelet", but since this particle has preposterous characteristics such as destroying half the Observable Universe by its very existence, I highly doubt they have ever existed in reality. The other Quark model predicted particle is also highly destructive hypothetically and evidently not even one of those has ever actually existed in the real universe either.

So this is an example of how the supposed "Framework of Physics" which we use every day is actually complete wrong and preposterous, even though i does work for SOME classes of problems "close enough" that we can't tell the difference, the truth is it is actually only a pathetic MODEL and not at all true.

[Red-Blaze]

Imagery numbers do not hold to real world, it should not as its not what they are about
I mean you mixing practical math and physics with therotical one, that is not meant to relay to real world but is about a type of "what if" that teach about what is beyond and can be used for vraity of stuff on real world applications
You don't need to count to infinity, its not practical to do so, and its not in practical math for that reason
And as @exitseven said with a simplification of the proof, there can always be a bigger number, you can always add + 1

And you know what.. do you believe god exist and is permeant? dose that not mean his infinite? so if everything is finite I guess so is god?

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[strateguy632]

to exit exactly simply x+1 is possible in every x.

[strateguy632]

but think of the meaning zero means, from origin nothing so origin is 0,0 where axis cross they "do cross" because along the dimension of x, nothing away from origin in each dimension so same y they do cross not just symbolic lines.

about infinite, between each WHOLE number is literaly infinite decimals and fractions like between 2 until 3: 2.1 2.11 etc. multiplied by each number, can only defined as that sleeping 8. and same as between each whole number as above, copy the decimal idea, to truly infinite whole numbers... which can describe an infinite length of ray or line or plane etc.

[Siri137]

I'm by no means a mathematician, but your "proof" here is laughable. Come on, you simply cannot be serious about this. You do know about, for example, definite integrals don't you? (hint: they don't make use of, do not employ, the concept of infinity). What about velocity? You know, displacement over time, which is what the odometer in your car measures. If calculus didn't work, neither would they. I could go on (and on, and on, and on...).

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Zero in a graph is a dot. Just like any other number is a graph. Many dots form a graph.

And yes if you understand what numbers are you understand that you can always add one more. Always. Add infinitum.

What we don't have any proof of is God.

[RealMarek]

So, am I understanding that your logic in the second paragraph is that if something cannot be proven true, it must be false? Because that is faulty logic.

[WanderingLoveWizard]

My man. You need to stop trying so hard to be smart before you become stupid

[Wade12345]

Oh this is not me "trying to be smart".

This is me applying something Dr. Bill Louvier, my Hgh School Math teacher taught me.

One of the first things he did was prove that nearly everything in Abstract math DOES NOT WORK in the real world. Anytime he knew a way to prove a text book wrong, he literally proved it wrong, but because the syllabus proposed by the government required him to teach us the wrong theory, he taught it to us anyway.

I can only hope for some future generation that somebody with some integrity revises the way math and science are taught in school and university.

[WanderingLoveWizard]

That's interesting, but I was just giving you shit lol. You can do whatever you want

[Wade12345]

See my other MyTake which the Admins have not yet approved. I am working on debunking almost everything physicists and cosmologists THINK they know by showing that several theories in the existing 'FRAMEWORK" of physics actually contradict one another at a fundamental level, even though "physicists" THINK they all derive one another.

Example, First Law of Thermodyamics:

"Energy Cannot be Created or Destroyed."

That is dead wrong. It nees to be qualified this way:

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, except by God who is THE First Cause."

Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not necessarily true either.

God CAN reverse Entropy. I've eye-witnessed the fact that God MIRACULOUSLY healed my sister of Stage 3 Hodgkins's Lymphoma.

Copernicus is not necessarily true.

God CAN change the Laws fo Physics if he so chooses, and we DO occupty the DEAD CENTER of the Obserable Universe. Thus I think Copernicus was WRONG on both points. See my other MyTake when it gets reviewed by mods.

Speed of Light Postulate, which states that the Speed of Light in vaccuum is invariant AND the ultiamte speed of the Universe.

This is a problem too... how do you explain what happens when a light source at any arbitrary origin exists and emits light in opposite directions?

IF you are an external observer stationary with respect to the Light Source, both Photons appear to move away from the Origin at the "Speed of Light" but in opposite directions...

On the other hand, if you could imagine "riding" on the back of one of the Photons and looking backwards at the second photon, how fast would the two photons appear to be moving away from one another?

IF you say, "They can't move faster than the speed of light' then that means the photon you are 'riding" on is now apparently STATIONARY and the other photon is moving at C... but that is a contradiction too, because the first photon cannot be stationary...

[Wade12345]

So the First Postulate of Relativity is preposterous. The very fact one can Hypothesize Grand Unification and/or Creation by God proves the First Postulate is wrong.

The speed of light postulate is also wrong, since the First Postulate's being wrong would then allow the Speed of light to vary , obviously.

Since BOTH postulates fo Copernicus are preposterous and BOTH postulates of Relativity are also preposterous, this means we should discared BOTH copernicus and Einstein and search for some entirely new framework of physics.

There is no way to prove the age or distance of anything in a telescope beyond the limit of the Parallax method.

There is no way to prove the parallax method works either, since i've already proven that neither Triangles nor Circles are real things in the material universe, but they are only abstracts.

Thus Scientis MAY be wrong about the closest stars distance, mass, and age and they probably are wrong, AND they are probably COMPLETELY wrong about distant galaxies in nearly every respect.

Example:

We actually have no idea whatsoever how Supermassive Black Holes form. The present HYPOTHESIS is that they somehow grew from Stellar Mass Black Holes, but if that were true, there should be billions and billions and billions of "intermediate mass black holes" spread around the universe, perhaps evne a BILLION inside the Milkyway galaxy alone. Instead, scientists have never detected even ONE intermediate black hole... if the supposed Supermassive ones grew from stellar mass ones, where are the intermediate mass ones?

[Wade12345]

We cannot prove that Supermassive Black Holes are Black Holes at all, and since we have never detected even ONE intermediate mass black hole, there's no reason to believe the alleged Supermassive ones "grew" from stellar mass and intermediate mass ones. IF they supposedly were Created through that process of mergers, WHERE THE HELL ARE ANY OF THE LEFT-OVER INTERMEDIATE MASS BLACK HOLES?

tHERE ARE PLANETS OF EVERY CONCEIVABLE MASS AND STARS ALLEGEDLY OF EVERY CONCEIVABLE MASS. SO IF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES REALLY ARE BLACK HOLES, THERE SHOULD BE GOD ALONE KNOWS HOW MANY INTERMEDIATE MASS BLACK HOLES, AND YET THE SCIENTISTS CANNOT FIND THEM ANYWHERE, SO WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THEM?

EITHER THE THEORY IS WRONG OF THE OBSERVATIONS ARE WRONG.

[Wade12345]

HERE'S A THOUGHT. HOW POWERFUL IS "ALMIGHTY" ANYWAY?

WE HAVE BEEN DECEIVED BY THE FRAMEWORK OF PHYSICS. THE FRAMEWORK OF PHYSICS IS A MODEL. A MODEL IS NOT REALITY. A MODEL IS AN APPROXIMATION OF REALITY.

THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT BASE YOUR THEOLOGY OR LACK OF THEOLOGY ON THE FRAMEWORK OF PHYSICS. YOU SHOULD BASE YOUR THEOLOGY ON A CLEAN CONSCIENCE TOWARD GOD. THAT IS, IF YOU SEEK HIM WHOLE-HEARTEDLY HE WILL TEACH YOU AND CORRECT YOU AND FORGIVE YOU. IF YOU HARDEN YOUR HEART, HE WILL REJECT YOU UNTIL YOU STOP HARDENING YOUR HEART.

EITHER WAY, THE FRAMEWORK OF PHYSICS DECEIVES EVERYONE.

HOW POWERFUL IS AN ALMIGHTY BEING?

GOD COULD HAVE LITERALLY SPOKEN THE ENTIRE CREATION INTO EXISTENCE EXACTLY AS THE BIBLE SAYS IN ANY ORDER HE WANTED TO OR EVEN IN THE EXACT SAME ORDER THE CREATION STORY SAYS...

GOD COULD HAVE CREATED FLIGHT BIRDS BEFORE THE DINOSAURS, AS THE TEXT SAYS.

GOD COULD HAVE CREATED WHALES BEFORE LAND ANIMALS, AS THE TEXT SAYS.

GOD COULD HAVE AND DID CREATE THE EARTH AND LIQUID WATER BEFORE LIGHT AND THE SUN, AS WE NOW KNOW.

ALMIGHTY MEANS HE CAN DO ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T CONTRADICT HIMSELF.

[Wade12345]

ACCORDING TO ATHEISTS, IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH RANDOMLY GENERATED NONSENSE IN ENOUGH RANDOMLY GENERATED UNIVERSES, ONE OF THEM (THEY CLAIM) IS BOUND TO HAVE INFINITE SELF-ORGANIZATION AND HUMAN LIFE AND INTELLIGENCE.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. THAT IS MAGIC AND IT IS A LIE.

ACCORDING TO ATHEISTS, ONCE ONE LIFE FORM GOT STARTED ON EARTH, IT RANDOMLY MUTATED INTO ALL OTHER LIFE FORMS. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE THAT IS MAGIC.

ACCORDING TO LOGIC, (THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE WE THINK WE KNOW ARE LOGICAL, AND THE LAWS THAT ACTUALLY EXIST ARE LOGICAL WHETHER OR NOT WE KNOW THEM OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO THEM,) AHEM, LOGICAL LAWS DEMAND A LOGICAL CREATION EVENT. THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN PRODUCE A LOGICAL CREATION EVENT IS AN INTELLIGENT MIND. THAT IS REAL SCIENCE. THUS THE FIRST CAUSE IS THE ONE TRUE PERSONAL GOD.

[Wade12345]

FOR EXAMPLE, PROKARYOTES AND EUKARYOTES ARE NOT GENETICALLY RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER AND HAVE NO OBVIOUS COMMON ANCESTOR. THEY HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT RIBOSOME TYPES AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT GENES TO CREATE THE RIBOSOMES... AND SINCE THEIR RIBOSOMES ARE DIFFERENT, TH ERIBOSOMES INTERPRET THEIR GENES DIFFERENTLY.

THUS A PROKARYOTE AND A EUKARYOTE AS AS DIFFERENT AS A "BIG INDIAN" AND "LITTLE INDIAN" COMPUTER ARE FROM ONE ANOTHER. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT HARDWARE AND THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SOFTWARE WHICH ONLY WORKS ON DIFFERENT HARDWARE. THEY ARE NOT BY ANY MEANS DESCENDED FROM ONE ANOTHER AND HAVE NO COMMON ANCESTOR. THEY WERE IN FACT CREATED SEPARATELY BY THE TRUE CREATOR.

VIRUSES ARE SOMETHING ELSE. NOT EXACTLY CELLULAR LIFE, BUT IT'S PREPOSTEROUS NOT TO CALL A VIRUS "ALIVE" TOO. (BIOLOGISTS PRESENTLY DO NOT CONSIDER VIRUSES TO BE TRUE LIFE FORMS LAST I CHECKED, WHICH WAS ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO).

AHEM. VIRUSES ARE OBVIOUSLY ALIVE. THEY JUST AREN'T THE SAME THING AS "CELLS". IT'S PREPOSTEROUS TO CLAIM THEY ARE NOT ALIVE.

[Wade12345]

IN THE GIVING OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (LISTEN UP ATHEISTS,) GOD SAID HE CREATED HEAVEN, EARTH, AND THE SEA AND EVERYTHING... EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THEM.

THAT MEANS NOTHING HAPPENS BY ACCIDENT AT ALL, AND NOTHING HAPPENS BY "ACCIDENTY PLUS SELECTION" EITHER. EVERYTHING IS CREATED BY GOD AND HE ACTUALLY OVERRULES EVERYTHING.

YOUR BELIEF IN GOD IS GOVERNED BY GOD IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER.

YOUR DISBELIEF IN GOD IS GOVERNED BY GOD IF YOU ARE A DISBELIEVER.

HURRICANES AND TORNADOES ARE CREATED BY GOD, AND GOD DOES AN AWFUL LOT OF DESTROYING CHRISTIAN HOMES AND CHURCHES, SO LET THAT SINK IN. IF GOD WAS PLEASED WITH CHRISTIANS, WHY WOULD HE DO SUCH A THING?

UNDERSTAND?

GOD CREATED HEAVEN, THE EARTH, AND THE SEA AND EVERYTHING IN THEM, INCLUDING BACTERIA AND VIRUSES AND INCLUDING COVID19.

[Wade12345]

IT SAYS SO IN EXODUS THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING INCLUDING HEAVEN, EARTH, AND THE SEA AND EVERYTHING IN THEM. THAT INCLUDES ALL DISEASE-CAUSING AGENTS AND ALL MEDICAL CURES. THAT INCLUDES RIGHTEOUS ANGELS AND THAT INCLUDES FALLEN ANGELS. THAT INCLUDES GOOD PEOPLE AND THAT INCLUDES EVIL PEOPLE, SUCH AS MURDERERS.

GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, WHETHER OR NOT WE EVER UNDERSTAND HOW OR WHY IS IRRELEVANT AND CHANGES NOTHING.

ONE WAY TO SEE THIS IS TO SHOW THAT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE DERIVABLE FROM BASIC MORAL AND LOGICAL ARGUMENTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, "THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF."

WELL ONCE WE HAVE THAT LAW, PLUS THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, WE CAN DERIVE ALL OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS FROM LOGICAL PRINCIPLES.

YOU wouldn't WANT YOUR SPOUSE TO COMMIT ADULTERY, SO YOU SHOULDN'T COMMIT ADULTERY.

YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO BE MURDERED, SO YOU SHOULD NOT MURDER.
AND BY EXTENSION iF YOU WERE AN UNBORN BABY YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO BE ABORTED, SO YOU SHOULD NOT ABORT YOUR OWN UNBORN BABY.

YOU WOULDN'T WANT SOMEONE TO STEAL FROM YOU SO YOU SHOULD NOT STEAL.

YOU WOULDN'T WANT SOMEONE TO SLEEP WITH YOUR SPOUSE, SO YOU SHOLD NOT DO THAT EITHER, AND YOU WOULDN'T WANT SOMEONE STEALING OR COVETING ALL YORU STUFF, SO YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT EITHER.

IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE CREATOR, ONE FIRST CAUSE, SO YOU SHOULD NOT WORSHIP ANYONE OR ANYTHING EXCEPT THE ONE TRUE GOD.

IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS A MAN-MADE IDOL OR A COW HAS NO DIVINITY SO YOU SHOULD NOT WORSHIP IDOLS OR ANIMALS OR ANGELS ETC.

IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS YOU SHOULD HONOR YOUR PARENTS PROPORTIONAL TO WHAT THEY DESERVE CERTAINLY, AND PERHAPS A BIT MORE THAN WHAT THEY DESERVE JUST IN CASE "DESERVE" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD'S INTENTION HERE.

IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS SINCE ALL OF THOSE COMMANDMENTS ARE DERIVABLE, THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT IS DERIVABLE TOO. IT MAKES NO FALSE CLAIMS ANYWAY.

[Wade12345]

HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED THAT THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER IS USUALLY ALMOST EXACTLY CORRECT ON HURRICANE TRACKS LATELY, BUT THAT THEY STILL GET INTENSITY WRONG ABOUT HALF THE TIME?

THIS MIGHT NOT BE OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE, BUT THE NHC IMPROVES THE GFS COMPUTER MODEL EVERY YEAR AND THE EUROPEAN UNION IMPROVES THE EUROPEAN MODEL EVERY YEAR. THIS MEANS THIS YEAR THE NHC WILL BE USING A 7 DAY FORECAST CONE FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER... BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY CAN GET 60% CONE CERTAINTY 7 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME NOW... EVIDENTLY.

SO THEY THINK...

EVEN AFTER ALL THESE IMPROVEMENTS, ONCE IN A WHILE A HURRICANE STILL THROWS THEM FOR A BIG, BIG LOOP AND IT USUALLY STARTS WITH THE TINIEST ALMOST IMPERCEPTIBLE DETAIL, SUCH AS HURRICANE IAN.

RECALL, NHC FORECAST IAN TO MAX OUT AT 140MPH 3 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME AND THEY FORECAST IAN TO LANDFALL IN THE PANHANDLE OF FLORIDA... BIG MISTAKE ON TRACK, BIGGEST TRACK MISTAKE IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? THE MODEL FAILED TO CALCULATE THE ISLAND REBOUND EFFECT ON CUBA CORRECTLY SO THE HURRICANE BOUNCED OFF THE MOUN TAINS ON CUBA AND DRIFTED EAST MORE THAN THE MODELS CALCULATED. THE HUMANS DID NOT ANTICIPATE THT THE MODELS WERE WRONG, SO THEY HAD NO IDEA IAN WAS GOING TO HOOK HARD RIGHT AND HIT SOUTH OF TAMPA BAY.

FURTHERMORE, THEY HAD NO IDEA IAN WAS GOING TO TOP OUT AT 162MPH SUSTAINED AT SURFACE AND 190KNOTS/220MPH SUSTAINED AT FLIGHT LEVEL AS IT DID.

[Wade12345]

SO A LITTLE OVER A WEEK AGO THEY REANALYZED THEIR DATA, AND IT TURNS OUT IAN WAS A CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE BRIEFLY WHILST IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, A FULL 22MPH MORE INTENSE THAN MAX INTENSITY FORECAST HAD BEEN JUST 2 OR 3 DAYS EARLIER.

IAN THEN MADE LANDFALL WHERE i PROPHESIED IT WOULD LANDFALL, JUST SOUTH OF TAMPA, AND IT DID ALMOST AS MUCH DAMAGE THERE AS KATRINA DID TO NEW ORLEANS, EVEN THOUGH MOST OF KATRINA'S DAMAGE WAS DUE TO MAN-MADE LEVEE FAILURES. IAN'S DAMAGE WAS DUE THE 8TH POWER OF WIND SPEED LAW AND IT WRECKED HOUSE. THE WEATHER CHANNGEL METEOROLOGISTS AID IT WAS THE WORST HURRICANE THEY HAD EVER SEEN, AND I SAID THE SAME THING.

MANKIND CANNOT PREDICT GOD, BUT GOD CAN REVEAL HIMSELF TO MANKIND, AND THEN MANKIND CAN PREDICT AN UNPREDICTABLE HURRICANE... BY DIVINE INSPIRATION.

[Wade12345]

NOW I ONCE AGAIN PROPHESY BY THE TRUE CREATOR, WHO IS THE BIBLICAL YAHWEH, THAT A 155MPH CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE WILL HIT SOUTH CAROLINA THIS ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON... IT WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL LANDFALL THAT FAR NORTH ON RECORD IN THE PAST 400 YEARS.

... AND ANOTHER CATEGORY 3 OR 4 HURRICANE WILL HIT LOWER PLAQUEMINES ADJACENT TO NEW ORLEANS AGAIN THIS ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON ON A TRACK VERY SIMILAR TO KATRINA AND CAMILLE.

I REALIZE SKEPTICS AND DISBELIEVERS THINK I'M MAD FOR SAYING SO, BUT SKEPTICISM AND DISBELIEF IS NOT THE STANDARD OF TRUTH.

TEST ME AND TEST GOD. I AM GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO TEST GOD.

IF I AM LYING I AM GOING TO DIE AND GO TO HELL.

IF I AM TELLING THE TRUTH, IT MEANS GOD ALMIGHTY EXISTS AND HE IS PUNISHING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..

"HIS HAND IS IN THE WHIRLWIND AND THE CLOUDS ARE THE DUST OF HIS FEET."

HATE TO BREAK IT TO AMERICANS, BUT NEITHER KATRINA NOR IAN NOR IDA ESCAPED GOD'S GRASP. IN FACT, GOD CREATED THOSE STORMS AND SENT THEM HIMSELF.

"OPEN REBUKE IS BETTER THAN SECRET LOVE."

BEWARE WHEN GOD HIMSELF STOPS PLAGUING YOU AND STOPS REBUKING YOU. AND STOPS CORRECTING YOU... BECAUSE YOU'RE PRETTY WELL DAMNED IF THAT HAPPENS.

[Wade12345]

NOW SOME PEOPLE CALLED ATHEISTS ARE GOING TO BE BUTT-HURT THAT GOD REBUKED THEM FOR THEIR SIN. ATHEISTS THINK GOD IS REQUIRED TO BOW DOWN TO THEM AND MEET THEM ON THEIR TERMS. SORRY, UNBELIEVERS, MANKIND DOES NOT GET TO SET THE TERMS OF DEBATE WITH GOD. NOT AT ALL.

EITHER YOU WILL OBEY THE TRUTH AND SEEK GOD AND LIVE FOR HIM WHOLE-HEARTEDLY, OR YOU WILL NOT. IF NOT, THEN HELL IS AT YOUR FEET.

[WonderBell99]

I don’t want to go back to high school again. I’m so done with that shit lmao.

[Tstrbrainer]

Wish I had the brains to understand this