Science changes, shouldn't our theology?Written by Terry Dashner
Continued from page 1
That’s interesting. And again science takes a positive turn toward Creator. “Christian readers of Mermin suddenly find themselves in familiar territory, for any deeply Christian account of creation seems bound to have a relational quality. From enigmatic ‘us’ in Genesis 1:26 to fully formed descriptions of Trinity in creeds, Christian thought posits a relationality in God himself. And universe exists, Jewish and Christian theologians have long asserted, in continuous, ongoing, dynamic, loving relation to God…Under Mermin’s interpretation, at least, QM turns out to be as much an ally as a foe to Christian understanding of world, and some of its most ‘irrational’ elements actually compel a more relational rationality” writes Mrs. Crouch. Does this twist in science prove anything? No. Why? Because it, too, will evolve over time and change. Nothing is constant but change, said philosophers of old; however, one thing is certain. Science and Theology are not sworn enemies that 19th century philosophers made them out to be. I believe that one may complement other. But one of two must never change—belief in God and His relationship to me through Jesus Christ. Keep faith. Stay course. Jesus is Lord over all creation and soon coming King of Kings. Pastor T.dash…peace
Pastors a church.
  Superultramodern Science (SS) and The Millennium Problems in MathematicsWritten by Dr Kedar Joshi PBSSI MRI
Continued from page 1
2. Poincare Conjecture If we stretch a rubber band around surface of an apple, then we can shrink it down to a point by moving it slowly, without tearing it and without allowing it to leave surface. On other hand, if we imagine that same rubber band has somehow been stretched in appropriate direction around a doughnut, then there is no way of shrinking it to a point without breaking either rubber band or doughnut. We say surface of apple is "simply connected," but that surface of doughnut is not. Poincaré, almost a hundred years ago, knew that a two dimensional sphere is essentially characterized by this property of simple connectivity, and asked corresponding question for three dimensional sphere (the set of points in four dimensional space at unit distance from origin). This question turned out to be extraordinarily difficult, and mathematicians have been struggling with it ever since. SS solution : According to Joshian conjecture in Superultramdoern Science (SS), that space has 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions, concept of three dimensional sphere (and consequently Poincare conjecture itself) is absurd. 3. P vs NP Suppose that you are organizing housing accommodations for a group of four hundred university students. Space is limited and only one hundred of students will receive places in dormitory. To complicate matters, Dean has provided you with a list of pairs of incompatible students, and requested that no pair from this list appear in your final choice. This is an example of what computer scientists call an NPproblem, since it is easy to check if a given choice of one hundred students proposed by a coworker is satisfactory (i.e., no pair from taken from your coworker's list also appears on list from Dean's office), however task of generating such a list from scratch seems to be so hard as to be completely impractical. Indeed, total number of ways of choosing one hundred students from four hundred applicants is greater than number of atoms in known universe! Thus no future civilization could ever hope to build a supercomputer capable of solving problem by brute force; that is, by checking every possible combination of 100 students. However, this apparent difficulty may only reflect lack of ingenuity of your programmer. In fact, one of outstanding problems in computer science is determining whether questions exist whose answer can be quickly checked, but which require an impossibly long time to solve by any direct procedure. Problems like one listed above certainly seem to be of this kind, but so far no one has managed to prove that any of them really are so hard as they appear, i.e., that there really is no feasible way to generate an answer with help of a computer. Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin formulated P (i.e., easy to find) versus NP (i.e., easy to check) problem independently in 1971. SS solution : According to NSTP theory, one of major of components of SS, all problems which, in principle, have answers are, in fact, P problems. This implication is based on idea of non  spatial superhuman computer that takes zero time to process information.
Creator of Superultramodern Science (SS)
