Our perception of time is what is limited, and this limits our understanding of "free will." God doesn't force our choices. He sees our paths and the choices we've made, because He isn't confined to linear time.

Maybe...and this is speculation only...we're like particles in Feynman's "Sum of All Paths" theory, where we take all possible paths to our destination, and we have some extraordinary integral that gives a final picture of what we've done overall. As we are going along our paths, maybe we can't clearly see what we've done or are doing (i.e., not all our paths are observable); however, we can freely choose to behave in a moral and ethical way at any given moment in time.

The next is completely subjective...

I don't know about others here, but I find that as I deepen my beliefs and understandings on certain levels, this brings about the sense of understanding what I can't quite formulate clearly in my mind. Sometimes I feel as if I'm being guided toward knowing something better, and sometimes I just leave things alone. With free will, there's a sort of knowing without really knowing-knowing.

And I do believe we deceive ourselves too easily into thinking we have control or can take control over any situation. We control only our responses--how we feel, how we think, what we say, what we do to react, and so on. Our efforts count, as does our willingness to surrender and understand we are not self-sufficient; we are dependent on God. "Bad" and "good" are our earthly (and limited) perceptions of events, as we move through a life of trials and refinement of our souls.

This is easy to say but difficult to put into practice, especially when I want to have things go my way and only my way. laugh

I have a question for you, StopS...do you believe in God? And I don't mean "a god who does this or that," but do you believe in Almighty God, Creator of all that is? If you've answered this elsewhere, I apologize for the repetition.

StopS

What? You make some wild claims and when I call you out on it you sidetrack into definitions of gravity and philosophical observations. When that shows to be futile and I put you back on track and continue asking you for some proof you run away?

Yes.

If we were in a physics forum, we would be using math to have a discussion. Furthermore, when discussing Newton's laws on such a basic level, there really is no need to specify the value of "g" as being at or near the earth. And since you didn't catch a reference I made, one that every student who's slogged through quantum mechanics would know, I was actually just pointing out to you that you didn't need to look things up for my benefit.

I think we've reached the conclusion of our discussion. Someone with a Ph.D. might be able to continue a qualitative discussion on General Relativity. I didn't go past the undergrad level, so it's difficult for me to convey what I know past a certain point, where math is the only language I know for such things. People like Hawking know the subject well enough to put the concepts into words that people can understand. I am way, way, wayyyyy below his level.

And in this discussion, I was already going over what stood out to me...that people (especially those who call themselves "realists&quot believe things they learn early on and never question, such as gravity. They believe in atoms and even quarks, despite taking a position that they only believe what they can experience with five senses. If theoretical physicists thought that way, we'd not be very far down the technology trail, because quantum mechanics is at the heart of advanced technology. And that is where perception is key and little makes sense if perceived with the lens of everyday "reality."

So...thank you for this exchange of views, even though we remain divided in our perceptions of the video and our beliefs in general.

We're not splitting hairs.

Newton's law does not "break down" with larger masses. You can use it all the way to the ort cloud if you want. The problem is accuracy in predicted outcomes or measurements, as well as with too much being unexplained in terms of identifying the actual force.

You don't need to quote Wikistuff to tell me a law that is part of my DNA (mixing bio and physics again). To clarify that definition a little more...the force of gravity between two masses is directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, multiplied times G (a gravitational constant). The acceleration of any object due to the force of gravity is 9.8 m/s(2). In the fundamental equation of F=ma, you get F=mg (g is the acceleration due to gravity).

I'm telling you that to save you some time in looking things up.

These equations and the more complicated versions that take into account other forces and relative positions and all...they are still used. I've said so all along. Classical mechanics is alive and well and in use and certainly has its honored place among laws that we definitely still rely on.

But, yes, to answer your question, the way we define gravity did change with General Relativity, where gravity is an outcome or consequence of the curve of space-time and our perceptions of what we feel as a "force." Newton could not explain where this force came from. He could measure it, use it and develop a law, but he couldn't fully explain what it was the way he could with other forces--in terms of mass, momentum, energy and so on.

Those physicists seeking to continue Einstein's work and find a unified field theory (to connect relativity and quantum physics) want to find the graviton, which is a theoretical particle. And this is where string theory comes in, as part of the effort of trying to develop a theory for quantum gravity.

If you want to hang a swing from a tree, you're fine using Newton's law of gravity to determine how strong the branch and rope need to be, so that you don't fall to the ground as you swing to and fro. But if you want to give an accurate definition of gravity, then you can't stop with Newton's equation, because it is incomplete in saying what the force of gravity actually is.

And this is what I was saying before...people think that's there is some unseen force, which they call "gravity," which is keeping their feet planted on the ground. They accept it, because they perceive their world that way and somebody told them, "You are being held to the earth by the force of gravity." They accept it because it's good enough for them; it works for them. The scientific mind can't accept it, because there is something unexplained...and that just won't do.

The definition of gravity is not merely "enhanced," it changed with the General Theory of Relativity. Newton's law of gravity deals with a gravitational force, and it's "close enough for government work," even the governmental work of launching something into space. However, it most definitely differs from the way General Relativity describes gravity.

You don't need to tell me what quantum mechanics are used for. I've taken my steps on the Heaviside...and beyond.

My oh my, StopS, you do like to bait, don't you?

The definition of gravity has changed since Newton's time, and most people do not know that. While the mathematical laws are definitely still used (and I said so), they are outdated when it comes to how we "view" gravity since Einstein.

While I agree the speaker shouldn't address physics until he knows more about what he's talking about, I don't see how that had anything to do with methodology. He got his names and facts wrong by overreaching. As for evolution, the biologists seem to enjoy tinkering around with that. Other than a mild curiosity, it doesn't really hold much interest for me, and it's not my area of expertise.

Please note that I put "magic" in quotation marks. I do so because I'm not so sure that what was seen as magic, long ago, might not have been better scientific understanding by those deemed magicians. If a particle physicist could travel back in time and talk to Isaac Newton, the former might accuse the latter of believing in fairy tales. Given the level of technology in Newton's time, it would be impossible to recreate lab situations to support theories in quantum mechanics.

He's clearly a molecular biologist, so he simply doesn't understand physics. When he was staying within his realm of science, he made some excellent points and presented his ideas clearly.

If he had formally studied physics, he wouldn't have had to come to his own conclusions that there is no truly unbiased way of approaching a hypothesis or theory. He would have learned early on, in quantum mechanics classes, that the observer and the observed cannot be separated. Heisenberg is interesting on this, in theorizing that classical pathways don't even come into existence until we observe them.

With that said, I do agree with the speaker's overall point about how people tend to take "science" as a form of religion, without even knowing that's what they're doing. For instance, outside the scientific world, a lot of people "believe" in gravity and have no problem saying so, yet they can't accurately say what gravity is. They usually go right to Newton's definition of gravity, and they're surprised to hear that this is "old science." Accurate enough to be used in the everyday world, but it's definitely been upstaged by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

I am not among those who think that God is Good/science is bad. On the contrary, I think God has allowed our knowledge to advance and given us conveniences as a result of the knowledge we've acquired. We don't understand quantum mechanics, but we make good use of what has been discovered mathematically and experimentally. Science (all branches) has become our "magic" of today, and it's a test...we can put our faith in our magic or we can know that it is only a convenience to use for a time. And no matter what we do or try, ultimately, God has the final say. He is the Guardian and Disposer of all affairs.

Peace Fallen Angel.

Thank you for sharing the excerpt from Pervez. He was quite eloquent in his expressing his views. There was a wonderful clarity in the way he presented ideas and pushed his efforts to get people to see the truth, to study and explore the Quran, and to understand what Islam could be for all people.

Interesting topic. Like most here, it's one I've thought a lot about, as well.

I've often wondered if there were men who were part of the evolution of the earth--like the animals of the earth--who were created in a much different way than Adam. There is physical evidence of the cavemen types, such as Neanderthals and other "types." Maybe Adam was more refined, spiritually and physically.

While I don't want to go and dig up references (and maybe someone here knows more about this), I remember reading a couple of articles about theories of how the cavemen types from what was, back in the day, the land that later became the European countries...how the mixed and mingled with more advanced men (based on bones) from the Middle Eastern and N. African areas.

And I should note that I use "men" for both genders here, and that I am an American woman with British and Welsh blood coursing through my veins. But I do believe my early ancestors were often referred to as total barbarians!

Also...I've often thought that the "descend" part of Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden might have been a spiritual descent. They were no longer on a high spiritual plane or dimension, no longer elevated above other earthly beings in terms of closeness to God. That is, if we think about being enlightened, we usually think of it in terms of "rising up" to a higher level of understanding.

hy?per?bo?le
noun (Rhetoric)
1.obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as ?to wait an eternity."

And, now, to move from the rhetorical to the metaphorical...the winds are a bit too blustery for me here.

Peace.

Bigmo...ummm...I think you misread something. I was actually agreeing with what you had said, so I'm not sure what you got in a huff about. Similar views, stated slightly different ways, none of which was written in Chinese.

As for the Torah having to be translated from Greek back into Hebrew, that is fairly well known. There are writings (as in instructional type things) by Jewish scholars that mention there being certain problems with the translation, where they feel verses may have been transcribed out of order and similar types of mistakes.

I've read the Barnabas version, too, but I believe some questions have been raised about its authenticity based on syntax and language used, i.e., the language of the original manuscript "discovered" supposedly doesn't fit the time period. However, I"m not stating that as a fact since I only vaguely remember reading something like that.

huruf...I apologize. I missed your earlier post somehow about the "you" being clearer in meaning in Arabic than in English. Thank you for that clarification. I broached this subject because it was something I had been considering, and it seemed like the kind of topic that people on this site would offer insights about in ways I'd not considered.

Peace.

I agree with the Quran being a revelation, which is what I've already said previously. I believe Mohammed received the Quran as a light and a guidance, because that's what the Message says. Huruf explained my view quite well, actually.

But I agree with Bigmo. I don't believe the Torah or even the Gospel is totally wrong or totally false or at all like the hadiths. There are too many similarities with the Quran for those Scriptures to be entirely wrong in the forms they're in now. Plus, I believe God would have told us to abandon them, instead of correcting what He wanted to correct and guiding us to a better understanding.

Repeatedly, God tells us in the Quran that this Message confirms what came before and that He is consistent in what he sends down to mankind. Also, when it comes to Moses, over and over, the Quran admonishes us to "remember"...it's an oft-repeated instruction when Moses' name comes up. If everything given to Moses is gone now, then it would have been gone when the Quran was revealed...so God would have given us the instruction to forget what we've heard about Moses, here's the real story coming at you.

If you summarily toss out the Torah and the Gospel (that being the core message of Jesus and not the books the Nicene Council sanctioned and published), then you are tossing out what the Quran says we should do in regards to believing in the sum total of what God has sent down to mankind. The Message in the Quran is God's...the Torah was written down by God on tablets...the Gospel was alive and demonstrated in Jesus and his miracles to further God's teachings and give compassion to God's Laws.

To place Mohammed above other prophets and the revelation he was given above all others is a direct violation of what the Quran tells us to do. We are to make no distinction between the prophets. Prophet Mohammed gets the last word from God but not the only word, and God doesn't tell us, "Now that this Quran has come to you, ignore everything else." No, He tells us to use our mind, to think and consider, to use the Quran as a Guide and a Mercy so that we don't get tripped up by the inaccuracies and distortions.

Peace and thanks for the discussion. Very interesting views and thoughts emerging.

Good questions to ponder, Ayisha. There are probably passages that could be studied and checked or information to uncover who God was referring to here.

I know Christians sort of pick and choose from the Bible what they want to follow. When Paul comes into things in the New Testament, he changes the dietary laws and circumcision and puts some new rules in place. The Quran clears up those matters.

Early on in the third sura (33) God says He sent down the Book with Truth, and the Torah and the Gospel are mentioned. A lot of translators like to put Mohammed's name in parentheses after "you," but that isn't actually what the Prophet recited. Such implications lead people to certain mindsets, which get cemented over years of teaching and tradition. If God wanted to say He sent down the Book with Truth to His Prophet, then I believe that's exactly what God would say. Instead, He says He sent down the Book with Truth to "you"--to those fortunate enough to have listened to Prophet Mohammed's revelation and, maybe now, to you, to me, to all of us.

And 37 says this (using the Free-Minds translation again)

37 He is the One who sent down to you the Book, from which
there are firm revelations; they are the essence of the Book;
and others which are similar. As for those who have a disease in
their hearts, they will follow what is similar from it seeking to
confuse, and seeking to derive an interpretation. But none know
its interpretation except God and those who are well founded in
knowledge; they say ?We believe in it, all is from our Lord.? And
none will remember except those who possess intelligence.

I know how easy it is for "interpretations" to weave their way into our mindsets about things. For the first 26 years of my life, I ate Christmas ham after hearing the whole Mary and Joseph and the manager story. And then more ham after the crucifixion and rising from the dead story. Even though I was always unsettled and troubled by the concept of the trinity and God having a son, it was still difficult to step out and let go of what I'd been taught to believe. There have been four Methodist ministers in my family (three uncles and an aunt), and my mother was a Sunday School teacher.

Still, Truth triumphs when we stop clinging to tradition (or biases or entrenched ideas or you-name-it) and open our hearts and minds to God's Benevolent Guidance. For these last 30 years of my life, I've been profoundly grateful God led me through that door and I hope, through His Mercy and Grace, I continue to search for His Truth.

While it is difficult to agree with "good logic," I must.

The Quran is not the Book. As you just showed in what you highlighted, it was a revelation in Arabic...meaning the Book was revealed to Mohammed in Arabic. He was given knowledge and a Message, and that Message included stories and examples and information from the Book.

Why would God inspire Mohammed to recite "book" when the Quran was not written down until some time after the Prophet's death? References to the Book in which all things are written down before they happen and the People of the Book...those are clearly indicated. There is nothing in the Quran to indicate God instructed Prophet Mohamed to write out what he was told. Instead, he's told to recite/read, where doing a reading of an inspiration is much different than reading from an actual book.

The words were written on Mohammed's heart, in his soul, and it is miraculous what happened. It's actually more miraculous that Mohammed didn't write the Quran out and then commit it to memory. To do so would have given him a chance to cross-reference other stories and edit and polish...but, miraculously, the words just flowed out of him.

We do have that ability to cross-reference and study. The Quran is our guide as to what is correct and incorrect, should we choose to look at what is in the Torah. Yet, people go and collect a bunch of things, based on heresay, and take those rules over commandments God wrote down and even over the Message He sent down.

To Mino-taur Thank you for the link. I've read the discussions and articles about the number of prayers per day. Indeed, the discourse was what led me to consider the number of required prayers per day. Through prayer itself and study of the Quran, I came to the conclusion that there are three required prayers, with a fourth prayer of spiritual benefit.

There is a great possibility that people picked up the practice because it's what they were used to doing when they were worshiping false gods. The whole Kaaba thing and the ceremony people do as part of the Hajj...same thing there. It's no different with Christianity, where they have pagan practices that are part of their system now, simply because it was an appeasement and an attempt to appeal to people who didn't want to give up what they'd seen their fathers doing.

I see the Salat as a special gift to us...where we have a chance to come before our Creator and Lord, offering praise and seeking forgiveness and help. If you feel five times a day is required of you, then you have much time to formally come before God. May you find His Peace and Comfort always.

To Shila Yes, thank you, I would be delighted to elaborate. I didn't want to go into something that might have already been discussed here, since I've been away from this site for a while...only checking in now and again on articles.

There are five suras that start with "Alef Lam Ra," and each appearance is followed by a reference to the "Book." I'll use the FreeMinds translation here

101 ALR, these are the signs of the Book of wisdom.

111 ALR, a Book whose revelations have been made firm, then
detailed, from One who is Wise, Expert.
112 ?That you shall serve none other than God. I am to you from Him
a warner and a bearer of good news.?

(story of Joseph)
121 ALR, these are the signs of the clarifying Book.
122 We have sent it down an Arabic revelation, perhaps you will comprehend.
123 We tell to you the best stories through what We have inspired
to you in this Qur?an; and before it you were of those who were
unaware.

141 ALR, a Book which We have sent down to you so that you may
bring the people out of the darkness and into the light with
the permission of their Lord, to the path of the Noble, the
Praiseworthy.

151 ALR, these are the signs of the Book and a clear Qur?an.

The "Book" is distinguished from the Quran in the last sura referenced. The Quran is a recitation/reading and not the "Book." That's the Torah, because it was written down by God and placed on the tablets Moses had. Those tablets are in the Ark of the Covenant, and since the Quran mentions the Book being protected, the Ark must be in some place that God has preserved it and kept it safe.

If we are to accept that Mohammed was saying these words, then I feel we must accept that his reading about the Book must refer to the Torah. The Quran was not collected into a book until much later, so how could Mohammed refer to it that way? Especially when he mentions the People of the Book...the Gospel is mentioned...and the Quran is mentioned and referenced as a Message.

If you look at certain interpretations of the Hebrew alphabet, then it gets interesting. "Alef" is the same sound, and the way this letter is written in Hebrew supposed refers to the relationship between God (on high) and man (below). The Ten Commandments have "Alef" as the first letter.

The second letter, "Lamesh," which I'm loosely using as an equivalent here, relates to aspirations, a heart that understands knowledge.

The third letter, "Reish," is taken to mean "clarification."

Those three letters would be an excellent way to refer to the Quran, which shines a clarifying light on God's Divine Messages, which are accepted and followed and studied by those with hearts who want to understand and who are given knowledge by our Lord, which leads us along the path of seeking God and His Ways, i.e., seeking a relationship with our Creator.

To me, if people want to enhance their understanding and enrich their souls and spirits with instructions outside the Quran, then the Torah would be more beneficial than a bunch of things written down by people who may or may not have been right. Or may have even wanted to distort God's Message. Even with the best of intentions, human observational powers are not that good. Perception skews things, and we are often entirely inaccurate in giving eyewitness accounts, even within minutes of having seen something happen.

The "beautiful example" of Prophet Mohammed comes through clearly enough in the Quran. He could not have recited such a Message without it coming through his whole being--the words had to ring true for him, and in those words are all the example that's needed. It's like the Gospel. Goodness knows, there are many versions! But Jesus' message of compassion and love and peace, that the spirit of the Law should take precedence, comes through. The Quran is our guide, a Message of understanding and clarification of what came before...with there being no change in God's Ways.

Peace.

Peace all...and hello again after a long time.

It's been about 30 years since I decided to become a Muslim, and in all these years, I've never read the hadiths. I chose my religion based on reading the Quran. Not an easy decision, given the conditioning since childhood...much like those people who grew up being told the hadiths were sooo important, I would imagine.

Of course, when I made my choice known, there were a lot of people who came forward to "teach" me the proper ways and practices. The Arabs from the Gulf States had their suggestions, the North Africans had their suggestions, the Malaysians had theirs and so on and so on. Collectively, they just about ruined my faith, and I finally removed myself from contact with anyone who called herself or himself a Muslim.

I stopped praying, stopped fasting and didn't read the Quran at all for a few years. My belief in God didn't change and neither did my belief that following the Quran was the right way. Eventually, I did return to prayers and fasting and, of course, reading and studying the Quran. When I first found this site, I felt a rush of relief...you were people who were of the same mindset, and I learned a lot from reading posts and articles.

And I still don't understand the hadith thing. But okay...I didn't grow up that way.

Something I've never discussed with anyone is why there are people who are so quick to embrace these odd collection of rules, while they totally disregard the Torah. Why? God says there is no change in His ways or His Law. We are to view all prophets equally, and any discrepancies are cleared up in the Quran.

Indeed, the Torah is the Book and the Quran is clarification. The Gospel...well, we all have a sense of it, but the distortions are many. In the Quran, God tells us that this Message is confirming what came before.

Has anyone ever noticed that when "Alif Lam Ra" appears at the start of a sura, there is mention of the Torah?

Maybe this has all been discussed elsewhere and I missed it, but it does seem sometimes that we tend to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. And then some people want to go out and find some new water, just cuz they want more rules or something. Like prayer...and being told we have to pray five times a day (and having to hear that blasphemous story about how that came to be)...when there are three clear times mentioned. We have before the sun rises, before the sun sets, after the sun sets (at a time nearest the day), plus a prayer in the nighttime hours that gets us some additional spiritual gains. Hey, guess what...Jewish people pray three times a day. Why is this ignored entirely?

Any learned thoughts on these matters? Before the stones come out! (Or a link to a similar discussion, which I might have missed.)

Thank you.

Its actually being proven by science but scientists are too afraid of the consequences. peace,

Omar

peace Omar

What consequences would scientists be afraid of?

There are some interesting parallels drawn in the article, but I don't see anything that constitutes proof of the holographic theory or any other theory.

In science, the goal is not to prove something is right or wrong. You can say that a theory holds up and can be used to describe what has been observed or to predict an outcome. Agreement about a theory requires math that works and the ability to duplicate experiments.

In mysticism, people can simply agree on their experiences or ideas. Those may sound similar to things scientists are exploring, but the methodologies of their respective explorations are quite different.

..now if we could only take it back to the infinite soul

Nadia

peace Nadia

I wholeheartedly concur. hug Let the "soulful" discussion continue! I was very interested in some of the points you and Tay were making.

Should I blow the paradoxical horn to announce the return of the topic?

Hello, LoteTree!

Thank you for what you said about my writing. D And I wholeheartedly return the compliment. There are quite a few good writers on this forum, which makes for interesting (and sometimes lively) exchanges of opinions.
I have no books out, since I have spent most of my career as a scriptwriter and comedy writer.

The past few years, I've switched to corporate work, where I do get a chance to handle scientific subjects more often--but they primarily end up being in the medical field. I'm sort of a "de-technical" writer, in that my job is usually to decipher the science and present it to people who prefer to be entertained while being taught.

Really great science writers understand physics in a way that I do not. They have the gift of taking their vast knowledge and sharing it with others.

Modern physics definitely crosses into the realm of the mystics. Or should I say, it confirms what the mystics have been saying all along, especially about objectivity and perception and "reality."

Gary Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" addresses this quite well. And you may want to check out David Bohm's writing. Along with Tay's suggestions, since he gave me some I hadn't seen before.

As for the Big Bang...well, what can I say, LT? The theory has a few loose threads. lol It's a useful picture, but I suspect it is one that will change as more progress is made on newer theories. Physicists don't like loose ends. There is always the overriding question...where did all this energy around us really come form?

Which takes us right back to the spiritual realm.

peace

shock What are you still arguing for, neo? You won! handshake

If you read what I wrote, you would see that I conceded the blind faith point right at the top of my post. Which is why I didn't respond to your counterpoints. I'd simply be rolling over worn tire tracks.

The rest of my post was just clean-up of minor things. And the quotes from the physicists were to say that I was not alone in my opinion--just in case someone was inclined to ask, "Where does she get those crazy ideas?!" The quotes express the sheer awe (and bafflement) at what I learned back in school. That was a time when I didn't, as Newton put it, stand on the shoulders of giants, but merely put my feet down in their footsteps and look at the wonders of what they discovered on their own journeys.

For the launch of probes and lunar landing modules, I wasn't trying to take away from the accomplishments or water anything down. But those accomplishments are in the realm of engineering. How do NASA engineers (or others involved in space flight programs around the world) do what they do? I don't know...but they start with F=ma. A few equations later, they leave me in the dust.

I can give it to you in general terms, although you will likely get bored with it before I finish. First, those "relatively low velocities" you spoke of include the speed at which the lunar module was lanched into space, since it got nowhere near the speed of light. A sufficient amount of power is needed to hurl to spacecraft through our atmosphere and achieve escape velocity...again, nowhere near the speed of light. If you look at things simply, where the entire spacecraft is reduced to a point mass, you would ask how much force is needed to push this really large point mass into space.

Once "free" of the earth's gravitational force, when the initial rockets have done their work (force x distance), the spacecraft will move at a constant velocity. This is where "zero" gravity comes in, since momentum is conserved. If the gravitational force is zero, then you don't have to use "mg" in your motion equations. A body in motion will stay in motion, until it is acted upon by a force. (law of inertia) Without the force of gravity (F=mg), a body in motion will just keep on going at a constant rate of speed (zero acceleration). So you can see if a=g=0, then F=0.

Force is used again to change the acceleration of the spacecraft as it approaches the moon. You then use a complex form of "falling bodies" equations to land, changing the value of "g" for the moon's smaller value for the acceleration due to gravity. Reverse this for taking off again, where escape velocities are way, way smaller. Apply the force needed to push the entire spacecraft back into space and toward earth, expending fuel to change acceleration (slow down) as you approach and enter earth's atmosphere.

So, if you look at the basic equation for the special theory of relativity (since our little spacecraft isn't the size of a planetary body, hence not large enough for the general theory), you will see that E=mc(2) isn't practical for space flight. It takes a tremendous amount of energy just to achieve escape velocity for a spacecraft, so I wouldn't even want to attempt to push it up near the speed of light. Because what happens then is that the mass gets larger and larger as you approach the speed of light. It's hard enough to push an electron around a particle accelerator at high speeds, much less an entire spacecraft. Therefore, classical mechanics works much better for bulky spacecraft.

This is a rough explanation and doesn't at all account for inertial frames of reference (which gives me a headache just thinking about the math) or thermodynamics or the many, many, many precise and detailed calcuations for space flight. It is merely meant to illustrate that Newton's laws are all that is needed for a nice little jaunt to the moon and back. The ether need not be accounted for, because it was only used as a convenience in explaining certain things in the "old days."

Okay, then...I will be waiting for an explanation about why wave collapsing and quantum jumping occur. wait

And for more discussion about the infinity of the soul, which I am not at all qualified to speak on. D That is best left to others here who have a far better grasp of the subject than I do.