As it turns out, it is an objective and scientifically verifiable
truth, what religions and folklore describe for us under the name of
"other world" or "afterworld" (scientifically this other world is
called "counter-world"). This world does exist (although is hidden
from our insight into it), and the existence of it can be proven
scientifically in an objective manner. Below I am going to repeat for
your convenience and for your critical review, a most recent formal
scientific proof that this world inhabited by God (and also by us -
after we die) in fact does exist objectively. This most recent proof
is published, amongst others, on the web page "dipolar_gravity.htm" -
addresses of which are listed below. Because it is very short, I am
going to repeat it here, but firstly a few words of introduction...

On Sep 24, 12:50 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sep 24, 2:50 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip verbal diarrhoea]

Shorter Jan Pajak (or Pajak Jan, apologies if I've mangled your name):
1. Electromanetic waves look like tranverse waves
2. therefore electromagnetic waves *are* transverse waves (argument by
analogy)
3. transverse waves only propagate along a boundary between two media
4. there is no media in our universe for em waves to propagate along
(unless Florian, by some bizarre coincidence, is right about his
ether)
5. therefore there is another universe, and em waves propagate along
the boundary between the two universes
6.
7. therefore that universe is inhabited by god
8. therefore that universe is inhabited by us when we die

I think #6 could use more detail.

On Sep 23, 8:18 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
...

Ooo, we have a bully here in this group. Or more strictly several
bullies. You sound very loud, and you obviously are good in spitting
at others. But where are your arguments and your facts? If you
originate...

On Sep 23, 9:05 pm, "rupert.morr...@gmail.com"
gmail.com> wrote:
...

Yes I agree, this proof can be presented shorter. After all, "all
roads lead to Rome". However, the problem is that because of the
immense importance of this proof, there is a lot of people out there,
who would undermine it - if it is NOT formulated in a "skeptic-proof"
or "bullet-proof" manner.

I disagree with your statement "1" though. Electromagnetic waves
"display all attributes" of transverse waves, NOT just "look" like
transverse waves. There is a logical difference between "look like"
and...

No .. he's pretty much on target right .. there is no scientific proof as
you claim .. You're simply lying (and crossposting). you post is a rather
large pile of utter crap and not a bit of legitimate science or physics in
there. You don't fool anyone (other than other fools).

[snip]

No .. it is simply crap (ie and wild guesses with no scientific support) It
is only a proof of your own stupidity.

On Sep 24, 12:31 am, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sep 24, 3:31 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:

No, EM waves are NOT transverse waves. Did you miss the last century
of science? It's been a long long time since such a simplistic view
of EM waves has been defendable.
You've also managed to ignore the two main criticisms, one that you
are making unfounded assumptions in regards to likening transverse
waves to EM waves, and that at what rupert has labelled step 6, there
is a total disjoint between your premise and your conclusion.