God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

I'm inclined to agree.

I dislike it too, although I have thought of a consciousness-based explanation for it... vacuum/zero-point energy being little explosions of consciousness.

The big bang... perhaps I could get my head round... perhaps. It's inflation that bugs me, it's a theory that's been seemingly cobbled together to make two theories fit.

I prefer a more simple idea related to fractal geometry - cell division.

 

The dark matter is a result of the interchange of energy between the Standard Model Higgs field and the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The dark energy is the positive cosmological constant. The Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) solves the dark matter and dark energy problems.

I am extremely intellectually honest, as I know that my actions in this life matter and that upon death I will have to give an account of my life.

I have a genius-level IQ, as determined by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin. But I do not have autism or Asperger's syndrome.

Regarding the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE possibly being wrong, there exists no rational reason to think that it is, since it is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point TOE is to reject empirical science.

I'm not stepping on anyone's head attempting to lift myself up. Rather, I'm stretching a hand down in order to lift others up to my level and even higher.

Yet you and others here are acting as if you just stepped out of a cave. You'll never advance intellectually if that is your attitude in life. The thing to do is not to become upset that someone has presented veridical knowledge which is contrary to your Weltanschauung, but rather to study that information and change one's worldview to bring it into conformance with reality.

As it just so happens, I've written a detailed free article which thoroughly uses the Scholarly Method with many citations to the peer-reviewed scientific journals in order to help people in this endeavor of intellectual discovery and self-improvement. For that, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhys...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334

 

No - the big bang theory is a supposed extrapolation from the current model.

The modern laws did not come from the big bang, the big bang came from the modern laws.

You're progression is incorrect - think outside the box of what you read - if you can.

 

No no, I do not ask why anything exists as opposed to nothingness. This is irrelevant, although seeing you mentioned this in your article you do give it some relevance. You give mind and logic the same value, which is at least quationable, if not another assumption you are making to make your theory work.

However, I do ask why and how you assume a first cause, namely the Big Bang, as opposed to eternity. Science can not adequately explain the first cause, which is a fundamentally vital parameter in your theory.

Obviously you knew you were going to get attacked, debated and rediculed for your theory, so kudos for posting and defending it here.

 

If you desperately wish to start a willy waving contest, we can.

I went to a university that's rated higher than yours

I've had my IQ independently verified on three occasions...

The first, when I was five years old by Mensa - their scale did not go high enough to accurately rate me - I completed their test with no errors and became the youngest member - appearing in multiple newspapers.

Again by the high iq society, scoring 191 on their test.

Third time in a multi-discipline test, my lowest being verbal due to my dyslexia at 160, the highest 240.

IQ and paperwork means nothing if you come to the wrong conclusion.

IQ tests were originally developed as a gauge of how much a child had developed.

I'm an active member of multiple relevant societies.

If you were truly intelligent, you would not regress to broadcasting it in an attempt to give yourself credibility.



While I disagree with your conclusions, I respect your attempt and commitment.

I would rather spew many ideas that lead nowhere than offer nothing.

 

Hey OP, God hasn't called me yet. Maybe your ego is blocking his access to the phone?

Excuse me, I have to find a new cave to live in. The old one is full of banana skins.

 

Theory is one thing Fact is another

 

Try having Asperger's and tell me how easy it is trying to relate your beliefs to people.

 

Where did OP go? Vanish in a puff of his own spurious logic? I was enjoying playing with his pseudo superiority....

 

Hi

 

The First Cause is perfectly explained within the known laws of physics. For that, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang" of my following article--pay especial attention to footnote 61 on p. 30, which begins "Interestingly, the First Cause does have a cause in the sense of future-to-past causality. ...":

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhys...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

It's not a theory. It's a theorem. Nor is it my theorem, but that that of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler. The Omega Point cosmology is now a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) per the known laws of physics: viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics, and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

 

If the physical laws have been confirmed... then why did the speed of light drop for over two decades, something which was recorded globally?

There are errors in the laws and errors in the theorem you're pushing.

Evolving habits of an evolving universe make much more sense.

Take a peak at Rupert Sheldrake's Morphogenetic Field.

 

Among the last things in the world that I would want is credibility, since that is principally reserved for the lying, mass-murdering psychopaths called leaders and rulers and their sycophants. Rather, the Omega Point Theorem is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), which anyone who can reason sufficiently can verify for themselves. Hence, I'm not asking anyone to take my word, based upon classified information which cannot be revealed, even though I be a professional liar who has lied about the reasons for the last untold series of wars, etc.--as is the methodology of government and its connected interests. Hence, my credibility is perfectly irrelevant.

Further, I was responding to RooRshack's comments about me. Regarding your claimed intellectual ability, I suppose this just goes to show that IQ means little when it comes to being able to overcome one's own Weltanschauung. Truth is easy to know. What is nearly impossible for humans to do is to overcome their own worldview.

But since you are obviously threatened by my truthful response to RooRshack's statements, let me turn one of your above claims (i.e., "If you were truly intelligent ...") back upon you: since you seem to think you beat me in the "willy waving contest" (to quote you)--however, I think you yourself quite realize that you don't even come close (hence your obvious insecurity), but that your upbringing has taught you that the things which you listed are somehow important in this "contest"--why is it that you do not already know the things that I'm talking about like the back of your hand? Why aren't you the one who is attempting to educate others about these vital matters via a detailed article/book which thoroughly uses the Scholarly Method with many citations to the peer-reviewed scientific journals in order to help people in this endeavor of intellectual discovery and self-improvement?

Based upon your original post in this thread, as reproduced below, you obviously knew next to nothing about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler and his Omega Point cosmology. Indeed, you made the completely fallacious statement that the Omega Point cosmology is based upon Newtonian mechanics, when any naïf could have quickly confirmed that the Omega Point cosmology is fully global-general-relativistic.

 

The speed of light cannot drop, since the measures of distance and time are themselves dependent upon it. If the speed of light "dropped", that would have no meaning and hence also there would be no way to tell (but again, there would be nothing to tell since such a concept has no meaning).

When it is said that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) have been confirmed by every experiment to date, by this it is of course meant when the data are correct and validly accounted for, as there have been many erroneous claims over the decades of experimental violation of these physical laws which later get overturned by more careful analysis.

 

Your arrogance and assertions irk me. Sure it would be wonderful if you had the final answer sitting in front of you, if you fail to communicate it and convince people of it - then you're not doing a very good job now, are you?

Seeing as you like repeating yourself, I will too... the foundation of the theory you are pushing stems from the ideology of Newtonian mechanics. The idea that things would slow back down again and re-compress - the "big crunch" as most like to term it. Just because this idea has been padded out with pseudo-quantum mechanics, does not make it a theory based on quantum. This is why I suggested you try thinking for yourself, rather than just acting like a sponge. Repetition does not a genius make.

Interesting you would try to attack me with my post when I was clearly using it to demonstrate how pointless it all is... you wished to seemingly turn it into a contest, I responded in kind. IQ and qualifications are irrelevant if you have the wrong conclusion - I'm not the one claiming to have the right answer.

You seem to enjoy picking apart small irrelevant details and repeating meaningless quotes and names, rather than actually talking about the ideas contained within the theory you claim to have grasped. This clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding - repetition and regurgitation is not comprehension.

You enjoy your equation... I'll keep searching for an experimentally provable truth.

Feel free to address previous questions and I will respond in kind.

 

To see that this has not even been considered, shows not all avenues have been explored.

Re-analyse the "errors", think outside of your box and contemplate alternate explanations.

Do you not see how such explanation of a constantly expanding universe is incomplete?

The speed of light is regularly quoted and used as a constant and yet it is not. It's both directly related to and dependent upon time, another non-linear entity.

If a fundamental part of a theory is incorrect - then that leads to other errors in the same theory.

There is much more to this.



Go through a basic thought experiment... start with the basic element of the hologram, a string, and work through units starting from the fundamental. Look at how that relates to the expansion of the universe and the bodies within it, examine the ideas that can flow from that.

A manipulable relative number based on something picked out of thin air is practically meaningless - it's a concept - a lack of understanding.



Tipler bases everything off a closed loop system - an idea that if you keep travelling in one direction you will eventually come back to your starting point - having never changed course. Perhaps I can correct myself... he based his ideas from playing a game of Asteroids.

He assumes the non-existence of the generally accepted explanations of a black hole.

The second "law" of thermodynamics has already been twisted experimentally - above unity devices and a recent experiment by Munich university - taking an atom below absolute zero and observing unexpected behaviour and energy absorbing properties - indicating the possibility for >100% efficiency and an alternate explanation for the behaviour of light wavicles.

He refutes the idea of Einstein and asserts that we already have a theory of everything and nothing needs to be linked. He seemingly wishes to curtail scientific advancement for his own religious agenda. He preaches "we already know everything, no need to do anything else"... his attitude is what is fundamentally wrong with dogmatic scientists and evangelical religious persons...

His idea cannot be directly refuted until we prove something different - all he says is that we've found the answer and cites the existing laws to prove that.

There are still many holes in our existing knowledge and new theories are emerging already.

I'm bored now... too many assumptions to "prove" a bodged theory. Your worship of him is worrying - worship has no place in science or religion.

 

That's fortunate, because it is evident that your credibility is lower than zero to the power of -10

Wrong.

No, your credibility cannot be "perfectly" anything. Perhaps you meant "completely" or "totally" or "utterly". "Perfectly" is the perfectly incorrect qualifier to "irrelevant".

Agreed.

Assumptions, much? Perhaps the other people aren't attempting to educate because they know either their own limitatations, or those of others. Or maybe they're busy having a life.

Ignorance of Tipler is not ignorance of physics. I'm pretty sure that Newton and Einstein never heard of Tipler.

 

My limitations are varied and many,but I have to ask that if an ever expanding universe is true,wouldn't that eventually lead earthbound observers to see only endless blackness with no light from any source other than our own sun and moon?? Reasonable question?

 

The sun will turn into a red giant way before that would happen.