Strings & Angelic Hosts
by Lawrence G. Downing, February 5, 2015: An article by physicist Brian Greene, “Hanging by a String,” (SMITHSONIAN January 2015) rekindled thoughts that had lain dormant for a time. He and others of his profession venture into the jumbled theoretical worlds of cosmology. String theory is of particular interest to them. String theory proposes that at the heart of every particle is a tiny, vibrating string-like filament. It is an infinitesimally minute particle (try a million billion times smaller than the structures probed by the world’s most powerful accelerators, Greene, p. 22). In his explanation of String theory, Greene states that the mathematical equations require that the universe have extra dimensions beyond our three. There is more, much more!
Four physicists – Philip Candelas, Gary Horowitz, Andrew Strominger and Edward Witten – in 1985, proposed that these extra dimensions were minuscule. This explains why they had not been seen. Further, these strings are so small that when they vibrate they undulate not just in the three-dimensional universe, but also in the additional tiny universes. Defining the shape of these extra-dimensional universes is the quest for a small group of Oxford physicists, Greene included. Utilizing the calculations of higher dimensional geometry, this group set about to seek answers to the questions their calculations suggested. As their work progressed, their possibilities list expanded to thousands, millions, billions, and in the mid-1990s Joe Polchinski reached numbers so large they have never been named. Those who root about among the Strings pondered the possibility that, at last, Einstein’s recurring dream of a unified theory may be at hand. We who are not part of the scientific community marvel at the propositions that arise from those who, like Greene, delve into the mysteries of our cosmos. Their work opens to us interesting fields where our imaginations can roam.
Newtonian science affords scarce allowance for numerous events, descriptions and accounts scripture records as fact. Angeles, for example. How can one, if bound by Newtonian physics, explain how an angel appears and in an instant, like the morning mist, dematerializes? How can it be that these same beings can migrate throughout the universe and transport through space as easily as we pass from one room to another? The accounts that describe conversations between heavenly beings and humanity boggle our minds. Care to go further? Consider Jesus’ ascension. How many of our years would pass before a body, traveling at the speed of an ascending hot air balloon, would reach space beyond space? What manner of life-support systems would be necessary once that body escaped earth’s atmosphere? The questions multiply more rapidly than solutions.
To further disturb our minds, scripture speaks easily of the heavenly places! Images from the Hubble and other space contraptions take us into places that confound our imagination and raise questions that await answers. The violence and upheaval space-shots display; the disruptions that occur as one gaseous body engulfs another or as a clump of matter is irrevocably drawn toward a black hole where all trace will forever disappear. . . . Where, in all of these wonders, can we place heaven? Where do we find, in the turbulent cosmos, a quiet place that bodes for a better, peaceful land?
So here we have it. We who read and value scripture are confronted by the discoveries of science that defy much of what we know and believe about the laws of our universe. Included are the voices of those who propose a new physics. Like a thunderbolt or rampaging comet, the theories associated with a new understanding of our cosmos blaze forth. Michio Kaku, in his book Parallel Worlds, addressed the advances that have taken place in cosmology that force scientists to rethink how the universe operates. The suggestion of parallel universes opens new possibilities. Our “what ifs” run wild, or perhaps amok? Might one dare suppose that the concept of parallel universes provides an abode for heavenly beings?
The writings and work of Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, John Barrow, Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne and numerous others add to the cosmological discussion and increase our knowledge trove. Think of it! A being that is not bound by the limits of our three-dimensional universe. Is this where the Almighty resides? Where heaven rests its foundations? Is this the universe where the “Others” have the capacity to venture from a universe which is off our limits, to ours?
Where do such thoughts and possibilities lead those whose limits of sciences and mathematics reach stretch point upon confronting simple algebraic equations or struggle over basic geometry? One thing we can do is dust off our imaginations and give passing note to what cosmologists propose. Consider, for example, that divine beings may inhabit a domain separate, but in significant ways, similar to ours. We can contemplate the numerous possibilities presented by the theories that arise from science and wonder at the mysteries that our universe reluctantly shares. We need not be disturbed by the limitations inherent within our Newtonian construct. At the same time, we can find satisfaction that science opens to us opportunities to think about what once was science fiction, a new world, outside ours, whose builder and maker was and is God. Little wonder that the Psalmist, when contemplating his universe, observed that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows forth his handiwork. As an aside, should an angelic host from another universe appear to you, give a howdy and a welcome to our world. Should that visitor invite you to join in a journey to that mysterious other place, give us a Tweet now-and-again.
The blogger asked: “Might one dare suppose that the concept of parallel universes provides an abode for heavenly beings?” It’s awe-inspiring to think that “science opens to us … a new world, outside ours, whose builder and maker was and is God.” Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him!
A new twist on the God of the Gaps!
Congrats on comments and questions on cosmology and parallel universes that reflect the astoundingly magnificent God we worship. As if strings were not mind-blowing enough, another who reflects this curiousity and awesomeness of God is researcher, Barry Setterfield who looks at anomalous cosmological data at http://www.setterfield.org where he has a different conclusion about the speed of light and zero point energy as he looks at plasma physics as another plausible solution to the creation of the universe.
String theory is speculation not yet science. Science involves testability and the technology is not yet in place to test string theory. The idea of parallel universes may provide a convenient explanation for the location of heaven but don’t confuse fantasy with reality.
Not so. Science begins with imagination. How does a part of the world work that we can not yet see or understand? Theory tries to give a good explanation. Testing is just one part of the overall scientific process.
Thank you Larry Downing for drawing attention to quantum realities that lead us far beyond Newton and Einstein. And thank you Sandra for drawing attention to the remarkable constructions of Barry Setterfield. He has assembled an alternative cosmogony that is impressively coherent. He refers to it as “the ZPE model” because it rests upon the physical universe being infused from its beginnings with an energy field ( “Let there be light!”) that grew exponentially overtime. And it was this increase in the energy field (Zero Point Energy) that in his view led to parallel events in the cosmos, including slowing of the speed of light, slowing of radioactive decay rates, quantization of galactic redshifts, and much re-writing of the edifice of current physics. Barry is an original thinker who insists on sticking to the biblical text, has received insufficient attention amongst creation defenders, and has published a mind-numbing single-author book titled “Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy”. It is thorough and accessible to non-physicist readers. His concepts far surpass any proposed multiverse, which was dismissed in a recent issue of New Scientist by physicist Lee Smolin in an article titled “…a multiverse? Get real”.
I agree with fatherdoc: string theory is just that: a theory, untested and no manner yet how to test.
Why do most Adventists always want to picture heaven as a “physical place”? The only descriptions are found in John’s Revelation and cannot be physically possible: streets of gold, gates of pearl, trees with 12 kinds of fruit. His conceptions were based on physically yearning for a paradise, something since the beginning of time has always enraptured people as a longing for the edenic paradise they were once taught was real.
Even Christ, following his Resurrection appeared as a spirit with ability to suddenly appear and walk through locked doors, indicating that post resurrection, we may not have physical bodies but enter a new, unknown realm.
If, according to belief, we will have no marks of age, disease, disability and brokenness, how can bodily resurrection even be desired? So many questions: wil we be babies again and grow to maturity; will the aged return to youth? Will little children grow up?
Too many have believed that John saw the heaven where the saved will be; and EGW when she wrote of a 7-day journey, observing Sabbath along the way! Now that we know much more about space both John and she were writing very fictionalized imaginations.
“post resurrection, we may not have physical bodies but enter a new, unknown realm”
Paul and John both emphasize that
a) the afterlife will be REAL; and
b) the afterlife will NOT be like the present life.
“If, according to belief, we will have no marks of age, disease, disability and brokenness, how can bodily resurrection even be desired?”
IF you believe that God can
a) accurately remembers who you are now; and
b) create for you a new body free of the defects and deformity of your current body; and
c) remove the present defects in your personality and character; and
d) successfully integrate the results of (b) and (c) while preserving your identity;
THEN bodily resurrection would seem desirable.
Otherwise you should probably hope to become a disembodied spirit or attain Nirvana.
“Now that we know much more about space both John and she were writing very fictionalized imaginations.”
Yep – certainly not science. Either a miraculous journey, or some combination of wishful thinking, religious fiction and scientific fiction.
Larry “a new twist of the God of the gaps”. Several times in several blogs
i’ve theorized of this potential transition via threads and black holes, re: thought transitions etc. Limitless, infinite, smaller and smaller actual diminutiveness in human DNA. Also of physics parameters different and much more complexity than on Earth. Design uniqueness by the Love MAN.
Can anyone recommend a book that would explain the large ideas in “string theory” to a the math challenged person?
Thanks,Larry,for the interesting ideas.
Amazon has a huge list available, including several by Brain Greene.
I appreciate Larry’s attempt to show us the wonder of the unknown based on current theories. It is exciting to speculate in light of biblical truths. We need to keep in mind much of Revelation is symbolic. At the same time God created the physical universe and called it “good.” He was so real after His resurrection that He asked Thomas to touch Him and see He was real. He also ate food. We can’t spiritualize heaven away. But it is the character and not “fleshly” desires that make us citizens of heaven even now.
Time is something all the scientists find puzzling. It is the missing link in all our knowledge. Humans want to find all the answers in the universe, because they want to be like God–to control Him,and He will not allow that.
EM, at the resurrection JESUS was GOD reincarnated. With ability to superimpose in any form. i believe all true CHRISTIANS desire to be Godlike, but not anyway an equal. Only those who rail against GOD desire to usurp or deny HIS power. God only could sing the Song “I’ve got the world on a string”.
Lovely speculation on what eye hath not seen nor ear heard nor hath entered into the heart of man….Thank you Larry.
I’ve had a keen interest in cosmology for many years, but have been surprised at how many Christians ignore, or resist any new cosmic discovery. Is it due to the fact that Carl Sagan was an atheist? An unnecessary bias, IMHO,
Well I read the article and the comments with interest as Mathematics and Physics and the Bible have for me been major subjects of interest and study since before grade school.
I think Elaine has actually captured my sentiments most closely 8-). If God transcends time and space, then it does not matter how many mathematical dimensions or parallel universes you hypothesize. God can no more be confined to our intellectual cages than can angels be confined to the head of the metaphysical pin. Why the need to describe God within some higher-order mathematical/cosmological model? Didn’t God CREATE mathematics and physics and time and the cosmos?
This is all from the realm where mathematics and science fiction and information technology converge.
The best that can be said for “string theory” is that it demonstrates that given enough imagination and enough spare time and enough mathematical dimensions, you can construct a mathematical/informational model of almost anything. Modeling of complex information structures using multi-dimensional descriptions has been around for decades, arguably centuries. This is a widely employed powerful analytical and implementation tool. It is widely applied in the construction of complex data-driven computer applications that most of us simply take for granted.
But “string theory” is not a “theory” in the scientific sense. After several decades its advocates have yet to produce any verifiable or falsifiable predictions that could be tested either with present technology or with any credible proposed technology.
So this is just another “battle of beliefs”. Sort of like mapping certain narratives in Daniel and Revelation to one’s own favorite list of historical highlights. An interesting pursuit, but certainly not “scientific”.
Comparing “string theory” with the work of Einstein can most charitably be called hyperbole, perhaps fueled by some combination of ignorance and/or wishful thinking.
Einstein produced within a short span of time three separate important papers each worthy of a Nobel Prize in Physics. The one Nobel awarded was for his paper on the Phtoelectric Effect which built upon well established observations.
Einstein’s more unconventional paper on Special Relativity (including the famous e=mc^2 and time dilation) was confirmed in a couple decades when the first particle accelerators were built. Nuclear bombs, nuclear power plants and the accuracy of your GPS all depend on the equations of Special Relativity.
Einstein’s even more unconventional paper on General Relativity (including the prediction of time-space curvature) was partially confirmed in less than a decade when the “gravitational lens” effect was observed during a solar eclipse. This was low-hanging fruit that had been “hiding in plain sight” because nobody had ever thought to look for it until Einstein predicted it.
Einstein and Newton affect our lives every day. String theory?…
Likewise Jim, most every bit of deep space theory do not supply testable models for scientific examination. The same could be said for the existence of Jesus Christ, of Whom billions adore. Interesting though how much of early 20th century “BUCK ROGERS” space adventures have become reality. This space “string” thinking along with Black Holes, will figure prominently in
near future speculations that have tie-ins to space transitions, time warps, and speed in space.
When Seventh-day Adventism ventures into current cosmology it becomes a museum piece. There is no support for Sabbath or a Second Advent in current cosmological language or concepts. RIP!
Those Adventists who believe in extraterrestial beings somewhere in far outer space watching our moves and will observe God’s judgment are closely allied with the conspiracy theorists who are still convinced of UFO’s with aliens who perform surgery then depart for parts unknown.
It has always amazed some of us who see the close comparison between the two: Adventist belief in outer space journey to heaven and those who believe that space ships may convey us to wherever the illusive heaven happens to be.
Elaine, don’t bet your last dollar, especially if you have eternal life, on
the prospect that other space creatures besides ourselves don’t exist. It’s a reality here, and with the outer limits of the Cosmos, never to be exceeded, there are great possibilities of other
life forms, regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God.
How is anyone’s eternal life predicated on believing in extraterrestrial beings? Where does the Bible writers say that belief in these is essential to eternal life?
There is an allusion to other beings, but only an allusion, no definitive evidence is possible. Even the deepest probes in the cosmos has not confirmed that. It is a “belief” otherwise known as unrealized hope, as in “I expect to win the Powerball lottery.”
The Phenomenon of Religious Materialism known as Seventh-Day Adventism is clearly alive and well. The foundations were laid by James and Ellen (see Thomas McElwain, Adventism and Ellen White) and few have ever questioned their materialist foundations, let alone wavered from them. ‘Eye hath not seen nor ear heard’ is misquoted regularly, in support of the idea that the reward of the saints is a better material realm than the one we have here. We just can’t ‘see’ it now. What is more, those who deny the material nature of their future are ‘spiritualising away.’ As if spiritual things are a lesser quality than spiritual, ie, non-material.
However, for Paul, that statement ‘eye hath not seen…’ was merely introduction to a far more instructive statement: …’BUT, God has revealed them unto us by His Spirit…’ 1Cor 2.9,10 So for Paul, ”spiritualising’ is the greater reality, the only reality. He later again reminded the Corinthians (2Cor4.18) “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.”
For Paul, if a thing could be observed with the senses, seen, heard, it was at best temporary, ephemeral. The real, eternal things are not material in nature. These are spiritual.
Eternity is outside of this time-space cosmos.
‘
Serge: “The Phenomenon of Religious Materialism known as Seventh-Day Adventism is clearly alive and well.”
To be fair, it ain’t just SDAs. As C. S. Lewis (Anglican, 1898-1963) aptly observes:
“God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not: He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it.”
Or from Bishop N. T. Wright (Anglican-Episcopalian, 1948-) who likewise observed:
“Our ultimate future isn’t just that we bumble along trying to live the present life a little bit better until one day we decay and die, and end up either in the grave or in a disembodied heaven or perhaps both. Our ultimate future is that we will be raised to new life in God’s new world, not only to inhabit God’s new creation, a world full of beauty and life and justice and freedom, but actually to run it on God’s behalf.”
Gnosticism corrupted Christianity’s original Jewish message about redemption of this world through a Saviour, into a Greek message about escape for our supposed immortal souls from this world. In doing so, it turned creation itself into sin, contrary to Paul’s teaching that creation groans to be freed from sin (Rom. 8:18-22).
Serge: “Eternity is outside of this time-space cosmos.”
What do you mean exactly that eternity is outside of time-space? The Father is clearly outside of time and space, as these things are not eternal but merely created things. Even emtpy space is “something”. Where the Father is is the only truly non-material rhelm, and of course it is eternal because it is beyond time.
Even a rhelm with beings made of gas or light would still be “something”, and thus “material” in the sense of being created. Even light is “material” in the sense it is composed of created sub-atomic particles, that just happen not to have mass.
That is how I view it. So what do you mean by “material” and “non-material” exactly?
I am willing to accept the possibility of us existing objectively in an immediate post-mortem existence in God’s mind in this eternal non-material rhelm. However, I also believe God will restore us to subjective existence through resurrection, just as Jesus’ example showed. However and again, I am not presupposing just what “material” nature that resurrected “body” would be.
For those who might be interested, here is a really well-done video entitled Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
ps, string theory doesn’t get a mention. Materialism / Realism does, and also Idealism. Idealism, originating with Plato, is, imho, incorporated into NT thinking via the Jewish Hellenisation which took place in the interetestamental period. Idealism is thus to be roughly equated with my preferred term, ‘spiritualism.’
Isn’t it fantastic, how man’s study of matter has led ultimately to the demonstrable belief that matter doesn’t exist… independently of consciousness? ie, cosmic consciousness, ie, God.
Serge I watched the youtube clip. The fundamental issue we need to discuss is ‘what does material’ mean exactly? You need to define that before you claim to reject ‘materialism’, as well as accuse Adventists of upholding ‘materialism’.
If as the video clip shows: “Matter doesn’t exist as a wave prior to observation, but as a wave of potentialities prior to observation”, what does that mean to your argument about the nature of angels or the afterlife?
I agree insofar as I have admitted to you previously that in the ‘mind of God’ we can objectively exist immediately post-mortem. That is what I think all those texts mean when they talk about us never dying, or Paul saying he longs to be with Christ, or our breath returning to God when we die.
However, in God’s mind, which is the only true immaterial realm, we indeed exist as mere potential – just as your clip on Quantum Physics shows. But that potential doesn’t become manifest in a personal and subjective way except in the material world, either through birth or resurrection. Because until the thing is observed subjectively in a personal way it only exists as mere potential.
Thus, as your clip showed, the electron on the box doesn’t exist, except as mere potential, until you actually observe it. It is the act of personally observing in the material world that turns it from objective immaterial potential to subjective material reality.
The problem I have is any suggestion you might have then that we can subjectively exist immaterially, given immaterial existence is fundamentally only objective mere potential existence. Your own video shows that.
In this way, suggesting we can subjectively exist in that immaterial state of mere potential, as if one was an ethereal spirit floating on a cloud playing tennis with Jimmy Hendrix, is nonsense. Because that wouldn’t really be ‘immaterial’ at all, but merely a form of ‘material’, but where the ‘material’ would perhaps be same gas-like spirit as opposed to hard-matter.
In conclusion, in the immaterial state we can only ever exist as mere potential, which is to say in the mind of God. At birth and resurrection we subjectively exist, when the mere potential become reality by the act of subjective observation. What type of ‘material’ body we have at the resurrection I’m not sure, because even empty space, massless light or time are ‘material’ in nature.
So I am only convinced of my view after watching that clip – not dissuaded.
I’m not the first person to talk of this kind of stuff. Catholic theologian John Haught talks about some of this in his book Christianity and Science. Haught rejects Catholic notions of the ethereal immortal soul, instead emphasising notions of objective immortality in the mind of God. Haught was strongly influenced by the (near unreadable book) the Phenoneman of Man by Pierre de Chadrin.
Sorry just one further point for you Serge. Your clip says: “Observation created existence… particles don’t exist unless there is an observer… reality can’t exist independent of observation”
This all once again demonstrates that there is no existence outside observation in the material realm by subjective personal observers. Because in the non-material realm, there is no existence except perhaps as mere objective potentiality, because nothing can be observed there.
Only God exists in that quantum place of non-material mere potentiality. If we exist at all there, it is only there in God’s mind as timeless, spaceless, materialist mere potential. So I do believe God (or rather the Father) is immaterial, because He is outside of space, time, matter, energy and the ultimate source of quantum non-existence un-observable potentialities.
It also demonstrates God requires subjective created beings engaged in personal observation to cause existence to even exist. It perhaps helps explains everything, from why God created anything at all, to God creating time in 7 days (when obviously He doesn’t get tired), to us being born in the first place and being promised resurrection.
Steve, extra-terrestrial physics are a greater complexity than on Earth. No collider is required to find the smallest particles, as the MASTER mathematician created all. Attempting to understand the identity of the makeup of a heavenly creature is beyond
our attempts, with certainty; however there would appear that somewhere in the origin there is a marker that indicates material/spiritual oneness, and God has a created method of observation for heavenly creatures to identify others, as to role and rank. We think of actual physical Earthly features, whereas perception in the Cosmos will be of instant perfect acuity. 1st John 3:2 “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that,when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is”.
Steve, i believe that our souls are immortal; “mere potential, given life in humanity abode at conception, retrieval at death of flesh, reassigned life as a heavenly creature with immortality at resurrection.
Earl I am only trying to give proper thought to Serge claims that modern scientific understandings of quantum physics demonstrates the death of materialism. As I see it, quantum physics demonstrates there can’t be immortal souls, at least in a notion of immaterial subjective personal reality. Anything that is not ‘material’, and I mean even time, space and light as ‘material’, doesn’t exist (because things only become reality through observation itself), but only is mere potential. I admit it is all pretty heavy stuff.
Now why Earl do you believe in an immortal soul? What is the nature of this immortality? Is it a personal and subjective immortality, or is it merely non-personal and objective in God’s mind?
I believe it can only be the later. From a personal perspective, when we die, the next blink of an eye we subjectively experience will be the resurrection. Objectively we may have been in God’s mind, as quantum immaterial potential for a very long time, but subjectively it is only a twinkle.
Paul’s analogy of a seed in 1 Cor 15 comes to mind. Or maybe a science fiction stasis pod – similar thing. Objectively, a seed can be dormant in suspended animation for a very long time. Subjectively, the thing in the seed doesn’t experience time at all, so it is all like a blink of an eye.
That is how I view the afterlife.
But Steve, how do you view the ‘now’ life? We all have an inbuilt (egoic) tendency to view ourselves as having some sort of independent/objective existence/status, complete with unlimited ‘free choice,’ from which vantage we direct the course of our lives. This is intrinsic to the materialist viewpoint. OR as Descartes put it, I think, therefore, I AM! dammit! I am I am I am I am. Don’t even try to take that away from ME! Look, a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have!
THe big question is: consciousness. Does it derive from our material existence, or does matter exist because of consciousness? Our western tradition says the former. Most of the ancient spiritual traditions, and I believe, the NT also, say the latter. And by way of explanation, it is to be pointed out that this ‘consciousness’ is another word for the Divine. The Eastern traditions make no effort to hide this way of thinking, yet we still miss it.
In other words, we have consciousness because God has made us to share in His Life, which IS consciousness. Life IS divine consciousness. Take Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. And a little further along,
17 ¶ This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
So the choice of those who fail to recognise/remain willingly ignorant that God is life, do so from an emotional choice of the heart. Usually because of that egoic demand to remain in the (delusional) state that they somehow have life in themselves and can maintain some sort of independent existence, even if for a short earthly sojourn. But those who realise the Source of their life, put to death that old way of seeing things and pass from death to Life.
Earl, thank you for the text 1John 3.4 It is the endpoint of our earthly existence, the REALisation of union with God.
Divine Consciousness is Reality. Matter derivative from it. Again, Paul reminds, ‘that which can be seen/observed, is temporary/ephemeral. That which is not seen/seeable is eternal.’
Its a nice way to understand life, the universe and everything.
Steve, the seed of EARTH man is utterly destroyed, there is nothing physical left. The resurrection in essence creates a new heavenly spiritual body after the order of other heavenly creatures, and the personal immortal soul of each personality which was retrieved by GOD when the physical flesh gave up the Ghost, is united with it’s new body.
There were beans found in jars in the included food supplies
of Egypt’s graves, that are estimated to be 2500 plus years old that were planted and they budded and grew. So yes there was a form of suspended animation quite different than the total destruction of the human body, as the beans were not destroyed. However, there is a similarity of sorts, as both are out of a life cycle temporarily.
Yes, the action is all in the objective of God.
I do think that the moment of conception is when a human soul is begun. The reason being that fetuses are fully developed by
5 months, and many survive in the western world, when born prematurely. Whereas most go the full tern in the womb for approx. 9 months. The souls of Gods creation are immortal, unless, when they individually opt out of God’s grace.
These particles and different dimensions you speak about do exist as well as the orbs , angels , flashes of multi-colored lights and et’s . I “see” them and communicate with them and have traveled to other places . There is so much more going on all around us more than what meets the eye , so to say … I am not a scientist nor mathematically inclined but I know what I know and I see what I see. I don’t speak of this to many for the fact that people think exactly what your thinking right now (crazy) and I can assure you I’m not , I AM a very gifted person trying to understand it all and make some sense of my life which now consists of entities that many cannot see
These particles and different dimensions you speak about do exist as well as the orbs , angels , flashes of multi-colored lights and et’s . I “see” them and communicate with them and have traveled to other places . There is so much more going on all around us more than what meets the eye , so to say … I am not a scientist nor mathematically inclined but I know what I know and I see what I see. I don’t speak of this to many for the fact that people think exactly what your thinking right now (crazy) and I can assure you I’m not , I AM a very gifted person trying to understand it all and make some sense of my life which now consists of much of the unexplainable and the unseen …