Aethelwulf

I say they are improbable due to the complete lack of adequate evidence that scales appropriately with the extraordinary nature of the claim.

The lack of evidence is not evidence against. Something you will learn in science friend.

Most of us concur that the god(s) are possibilities. They are just so extremely improbably as to be treated as nonexistent in practical terms. What's the problem, exactly? No need to make things personal with those criticizing your points. Try instead supporting your points more effectively with logic, reason, and evidence.

Why are they extremely improbable?

Many might concur the fact we are even sitting here, at our computers, writing the things we write, extremely improbable. But here we are?

I'm frustrated that you're being so unnecessarily evasive and petulant, but I'm hardly angry.

 

I knew up front what you likely meant when referencing Einstein. You're not the first, nor will you be the last to reference his comments in some vain attempt to support your personally preferred fairy tale. I was merely waiting for you to confirm what you meant before I stepped in to illuminate the issue more robustly for you.

 

Below is a nice nugget on which you can chew... In the meantime, please cease and desist from making any further assumptions about me and the countless others here about whom you know essentially nothing. Thanks.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....religious_views

 

 

 

I return now to my outstanding question... How are Einstein's beliefs or thoughts in any way relevant to the possible existence of some ill-defined three letter word you happen to call god?

To be frank, I find some of the users quite arrogant here - a bit up themselves, so much so, idea's they think is out their league they should not entertain. Why should God be a fairy tale?

I deal in real science. Science is about possibilities. Not once in science should one say anything is for certain and nowhere in these posts have I entertained the idea that a God is certain. What I have said and will continue to say, God is a possibility - one you guys as real scientists need to wake up to...

Only to the gnostic. Since agnostics believe we could never really know the truth it is a pointless question to them. Since I am agnostic I believe it is pointless.

Rubbish. Scientists don't know the truth to any theory they present so are they automatically agnostics?

If they are... give up on science. Agnostic to you is enough to ''give up'' on real investigative science.

Science should be any topic that could be real... theory is such a topic.If science cannot disprove it then science's outlook is incomplete. God is not some mystical fairy at the end of the garden. It is only one question that science has not answered.

Unable to answer as of yet.

I thought that science was all about religion.

 

Quite the opposite.

The standard model cannot tell you what happened before the big bang. That doesn't mean you can't ask about what happened before it. There are other theories which allow one to ask such questions. One such theory is the Pre-Big Bang Scenario. E.g. see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9907067

I agree... It cannot tell you what happened.

I won't argue.

If any of these pre-bang situations are your topic, I will argue them however... maybe these cyclic theories?

The world is not cyclic, they certainly happened once and right now.

... and nothing is isotropic to these actions.

IMO it's a pointless question. Unless someone can prove that there could not be a god then the default answer is, "sure, a god is possible". We could of course follow this with an infinite number of other pointless questions, i.e., Could there be unicorns?, Could there be leprechuans?, Could there be wormholes?, Could there be Raleians?, etc. and so on forever. Sure, anything is possible. Why bother?

It's definately not a pointless question... especially when one comes to realize that no such question has a real answer. Such a question cannot be outside of science either.

the kind of science we often deal with, is the sciences we can measure. In respect of this, there very well could be something, intelligent beyond us that we cannot fathom or measure.

I wonder... Are you unable to answer my question, or unwilling?

Einstein was suggesting much more than what you could easily comprehend with a God. Easily, it seems obvious, you don't realize what a God could be, or one that even fitted the works of one of our greatest scientists.

In that kind of understanding, you may as well be a reject in in his eyes?

After this, I simply expect you to be angry. Because it is the truth.

Certainly no one's buisness than yours...

Funny how you demand that this "God" adhere to quantum mechanics when we know that quantum is wrong.

Really??

How Ironic of anyone... No one knows Quantum mechanics.

It is not very 'scientific' to make a claim without evidence.

Science is pretty much built up on theories.

What specifically are you suggesting Einstein knew? As a follow-up to that request for clarification, how is that remotely relevant?

Anything he did know, you certainly don't. How about that?

Juangra

Enough. You have highjacked this thread enough to disturb enough of even the mods. Please retire to a new discussion.

What am I suggesting he knew?

If you knew an INCH of science, you wouldn't ask.

It is not very 'scientific' to make a claim without evidence.

Who here has made claims out of science... start making some to challenge me.

Look, you guys may have a problem with life and the idea of a God, but life is not without such a conception in the idea of something beyond you.

I believe what I am saying, is that physics is an evidence of the natural world, an evidence which is a world we do not know really know the physical world about. The world is so complicated, even the earliest scientists knew that physics yielded a great deal of unknowns that reality truly is a mystery. If a god is responsible, there is plenty room for it, (him or she).

Sure, there "could" be a god. There "could" also be microscopic garden gnomes living in your armpits and singing songs accompanied by tiny fiddles.

Doubtful there is even a micro-microscopic fiddling set of smurfs who show up every sunday. I am talking about physics here... not the stuff of fantasy... the kind of theory.

This isn't about stories you hear at bedtime.... The world is far more complicated and ultimately unknown to knowingly think there is not some superior being existent. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge would know this... Einstein did. Enough said.

When someone says the word ''God'' most people think of divine, omnipotent, omnipresent and all-knowing entities. There are some problems with an all-knowing entity, such as the Uncertainty Principle.

If a God truly exists, he must abide by the rules of quantum mechanics. If he didn't it surely would cause a tremendous discharge of energy from each and every particle in the universe due to [math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math]. There is one reason why (a) God cannot be outside of the rules of quantum physics, assuming that relativity has any universal truth or precedence. Since nothing exists outside of the universe, we must assume God is contained within his own creation - indeed, assuming he even created the universe. A possibility of such an entity would be that they were created inside of the bubble of the universe, entwined if you like in a ''creation'' which he (or indeed she) had no control over.

Many people have traditional views of God today, mostly evolved from scriptures and ancient proverbs - but these have been adapted by men on Earth who have created these views to suit their doctrine and way of thoughts and systematic beliefs and foibles. What does seem certain, if a God does exist and are so superior, beyond the intellect of man, it is doubtful he or she would even find us interesting. Indeed, the God of Einstein was Spinoza's God, a God who does not care for the doings of mankind.

This is likely, the kind of God we can deal with in physics, or any kind of understanding of any physical kind of science. God is not outside of science, so long as you realize that God must be ignorant of many physical qualities that we often think he is superior for.

So what is ''God'' if not something we associate to scripture?

God in my eyes, should be ''something'' which has as quantum nature about it. Usually in quantum mechanics, to encode the information about a particular system, we consider a ''State Function'' often denoted with a [math]\Psi[/math] ''a capitol Psi''. The is the wave function which describes if you like, all the information of a system, which could be from a particle to the entire universe. The problem however, is, just like a particle you can only know [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] of any attribute of a particle system. You may know for instance, with almost correct parameters the position of a particle, but doing so would result in an amazing uncertainty inherent in its momentum/trajectory.

The wave function therefore itself, or rather, the state function cannot ever really be known completely unless we where talking about systems which was ''macroscopic'' because such systems are devoid of quantum effects (not entirely, but enough) to be ignored. A position of Schrodinger's cat is not smeared over space for instance. So in it's full form, is the universe a victim of quantum effects? It is after all, something large and can be modeled as a macroscopic system?

Well, most of the universe is made up of about 99% space. The rest of it exists as tangible ''existing out there'' matter, the kind that our most functional telescopes can hone in on and take pictures of. The rest of space is made up of ghostly matter which appears to be smeared over all spacetime. Some of it in the form of radiation, others will be smeared over spacetime as particles or other types of matter resonating from other distant galaxies. And even, some of this matter might actually turn up in different parts of space which a most recent experiment has shown (citations can be given if asked for).

I have even speculated within myself whether anamolous gravitational effects show up in the universe because the matter in the universe turn up in places they shouldn't according to this experiment, and thus, adding a reason why we pick up gravitational distortions where they should not be present.

God could even be some kind of ''supercomputer'' who is located in the future sending signals back in the form of (what I will call) Cramer Waves. Cramers delayed choice experiment has shown that actions in the future can in fact alter present conditions we see today. In relativity, we have no such thing as a ''true past'' or even a ''true future''. So maybe God is really some kind of machine in our future horizon which creates the world we see around us today, (which would mean ultimately) that things we do and observe in the present is really shaping the world in the past, when the universe was young and ripe.

Indeed. Perhaps, a lot of the acceptance today has resulted from the ability of being able to admit you are gay.

I don't know how close to the truth this is, but I heard two days ago that Turing had the choice to decide to accept either a custodial sentence for his ''crimes'' or to accept hormonal treatment. If that is true, hormonal treatment cannot treat homosexuality. How far indeed we have moved on, to even realize you cannot change what is wired into the blood.

 

Theory M only is valid for Our Universe...That is very good...but in the future could be insufficient.

M theory you mean?

Even if there was other universes, (which I don't believe there is), M theory could be describing a different universe. There is nothing in quantum mechanics saying the most bizarre universes out there couldn't exist.

So the complex numbering system and the quanternions seems to be a cross product of some sort, in where one matrices remains stationary and the other moves in time?... You see in video games I see the same thing, in where the grid floor of my 3d program is stationary and allows all other 3d game models to move around and about. The grid that remains stationary helps me to position my 3d models in empty space and model them with translation of x y and z much like how you explained doing this with the translations, rotations and scaling tools in the 3d program.

 

I think the numbering theory must predict the cooridentes of my movements before hand when I create 3d game models and thus allows the program to work with my movement in 3d creation of game worlds and models etc.

 

Without this grid I would be lost in the 3d program. The same is also for texturing the game models to. You have a uv map coordinate image by an even square size, ie 450x450 for the texture that you place on the game model.

 

I am using logic here , if this is so the case, and the texture map is squared, then this must be true for the Y direction for relativity. Y then must be squared! Its the same for 3d game models and their position in time and space in the 3d world via the texture uv map coordinate, just like photons particles that do not move in time but move in space time??

 

But it is a flat texture map with x and y or i and j, when you are creating the texture map in a graphics program you then place this on the game model and it wraps around the game mode in 3d space because of the previous UV unwrapping of the 3d game mesh or model, here is an example: http://en.wikipedia....Texture_mapping

 

Things like this amaze me very much! Since t = the person in the refference frame and t represents y, could this also be another way to express quanternions..

 

L = some wave length

 

 

L * x = A

L * y squared= B

 

 

1/ A+B = -1 OR +1 not sure..

 

Where

 

A = i

B =j

 

Or better yet 1/ A*B = 2

 

Or Maybe this L / A*B =1

 

I am still learning Latex so please excuse, not even sure if this makes sense, but I do understand what you are saying though I just need to practice more and study more.

 

This here is just an idea I have for now, where the constant of 2 takes care of the radius and diameter I talked to you about earlier in this post.

 

Thank you so much your explanations was incredible better than my teachers!!!!!!!, I hope to be smart like this.... I am hoping to get into the wave function soon, but this may not be for some time.

 

 

No not cross product that's something different. And there are no matrices present. This is simply a type of algebra involving imaginary numbers - three of them.

But I have heard about how quanternion mathimatics breaks the laws of commutative, associative and distributions in I think algebra?

 

In where [math]\frac{1}{2} x = \frac{1}{2}(x' + t)[/math] does not hold? i think....

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Quaternion

 

From what I know and read, it allows more calculations far more advanced than derivitives.

 

Also, I have always wondered about mathimatical induction as well as in: 1 + 2 + 3 + . . . + n = ½n(n + 1)

http://en.wikipedia....tical_induction

 

 

 

n in this case starts all over again as 0.5 or 1/2.... Could there be a system un accounted for that does use 0.5 as an initial start as 1 intrigal for time. Like the polor coordinate system as degrees and or ratios?

 

 

All this reminds me of spin 1/2 particles, but then their it gets very complex for me. I love the belt trick though also has quenternion relation! Awesome!

http://www.cs.indian...rick/index.html

 

I just have so many questions and would love to know so many things all at once..

 

 

By the way excellent example about the light photon thanks! You are a very smart person....

 

 

 

The best way I know of to describe quaternions (which is like jumping into the deep end of number theory) is the following:

How do you solve [math]x^2 = 1[/math]?

The answer is [math]x = \pm 1[/math]

How do you solve [math]x^2 = -1[/math]?

The answer is [math]x = \pm i[/math]. Here we have had to invent a new kind of number, an imaginary number to solve that equation. What's the solution to the equation [math]x^2=0[/math]? Someone might answer, [math]x=0[/math] but interestingly that is not the only solution. To obtain solutions to equations which are outside of the abilities of the real numbers that high school students deal with every day, you need to be begin to introduce a new kind of number system. Real numbers have the simplistic form of [math]a[/math],when we talk about complex numbers (the stuff with imaginary parts to equations), we begin to talk about forms of the type [math]z = a + ib[/math]. Then after this number system comes the quaternions which introduces three independent imaginary numbers

[math]q = a + ib + jc + kd[/math]

where the [math](a+b+c)[/math] are reals as you would find in your everyday counting system. The way they work is that the [math]i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1[/math] - but the way they form an algebra is the way they work when for instance, [math]i[/math] and [math]j[/math] are multiplied together. So what do they make?the following:

[math]ij = k[/math]

and

[math]jk = i[/math]

[math]ki = j[/math]

If you reverse the order of multiplication then they produce the negative values

[math]ji = -k[/math]

and

[math]kj = -i[/math]

[math]ik = -j[/math]

So its quite complicated stuff. So the product of two are noncommutative.

Panspermia could lead to a ''measure of closeness or proximity'' between life-bearing planets.

Pm if you need to talk to someone.

First, please note that the correct form is (note: I prefer G over f)

 

[math]G_k = m\Gamma^{\alpha}_{k\beta} v_{\alpha} v^{\beta}[/math]

 

I think that there is an error somewhere but I can't see it right now. I've been sick lately so my energy level is down. I'll figure it out when I get better.

 

I that web page I lost the c^2 going from Eq. (7) to Eq. (10)

No problems, take your time and get well!

How on earth do you think that two 5 sigma results confirming two 3 sigma results is inconclusive?

Did you find me a link yet saying they have definitely found a Higgs Boson...No?

I thought so. Start understanding what the meaning of the word ''conclusive'' means. When scientists are absolutely sure, they will not hesitate publishing such a find... outside of rumors.

I will not believe rumors until I see something which collaborates your own assertions here.

I don't deny that Higgs may have been found, but as I said, nothing conclusive can be said about it because no one has announced it.

Zecharia Sitchin Theories has lacks and faults like any theory...possibly every thing he says is not true or demostrable (twelfth planet,...) ...but give a global idea of the civilization that explains a lot of thinks (religion, mithes, link between them, Giza, floot, ...)

 

There are a lot of literature there... but also very good ideas and lines to be studied.

 

I think that is very poor not to accept a theory because "Sitchin's ideas were rejected by scientists and academics".... I espect more of you and that you may have your own criteria

 

Part of the theories of Zecharia Sitchin could not be academic or demostrable ... but most of them fits very well with the human history.

 

 

Every thing is pseudoscience and pseudohistory util somebody can prove or demostrate it !!!...but not for it has to be wrong or not true !!!

 

 

 

Have you been sometime in Egypt, Perú, Stone Edge...? I did....and humans like us didn´t do it for sure !!!... possible the ginats that the Blible talk about... but humans like us sure not... there are no sence to do it !!!

 

 

If you go to this places you will see something very curious: As more ancient are the rocks and buildings, larger are the stones, they come from quarries farther and are more perfectly shaped than the more recent.

 

Please, look for your self...and take your own opinion.

,

I saw this on youtube and thought this would be right up your street

I don't support it. It's just another wild wacky... brains dribble out your ears theory to me lol

wow! this now makes sense thanks!, but what if [math]x = x'+t[/math] needs to be divided by 2? In other words an equal length represents a diameter too is this right?, then divide this by 2 you have a radius right?

 

Could it then be used like this [math]x'+t / [1 / x'+t / 2] [/math]

What I am thinking here is that [math]x = x'+t[/math] = the metric or i think something called k like a diameter or secant line.

 

By the way, I copied the latex format from you, I hope I did this right, I am still learning, thanks!

 

 

 

No.

Radius has dimensions of length, 2 is just a constant. Dividing by two on both sides is actually the same as multiplying by a half on both sides

[math]\frac{1}{2} x = \frac{1}{2}(x' + t)[/math]

Radius has the same dimensions as the spatial coordinate x. The only kind of coordinate based system for a metric which would use a radial coordinate that I can think of is something build from what are called Polar Coordinates.

Oh, and time isn't the speed of light. Time is what we use to measure intervals. The reason why it appears in the metric is because there is a kind of length to time as there is to things moving from one point in space to another. A journey in space will always equal some kind of journey in time, unless you where a photon for example (a particle of light). A light particle according to relativity doesn't even go anywhere because it does not move through time. Of course, from our frame of reference particles of light do in fact move from A to B. There was a problem for a while, and that was understanding how a particles frame of reference could be dilated so much that it could not even experience time pass. While this provided an answer why they do not spontaneously decay in spacetime, they actually don't possess frames of reference (the inertial kind) we often speak about.

(just to add)

Sitting in your chair is a journey in time as well, even though you might not be moving in space.