Aethelwulf

Who is not humble? I certainly don't go around this place bringing people down on a better understanding. I know of one post recently where I said no one was understanding what I was saying, but later revealed I do not believe no one is capable of understanding. Thought-out? I think my God-thread was thought out. And that was not several... that was like.... four. I still think your previous point that long term members here have really good reputation points as a bit... pointless (mind the pun) for anyone else because favoritism as being their crutch. No one here deserves neg points unless they really deserve it, but I've seen plenty posts in my God post which really don't deserve it outside of what you could call... ''someone simply disagreeing''. Neg points are a ''crap'' way of saying something without giving a reason. You can recite plenty reasons why someone will negatively rep someone... does that mean they are under those catagories because easily people come here with the intend of just discrediting someone.

Well I will say it again, its obviously HAD flew over the heads of people. I made points on hidden ''computer terms'' inside of equations. But no one picked up on that. Condescending to the next, it was obviously the truth.... and that was one of the most recent posts you are picking up on. There are plenty neg repped points before this on posts that did not require it. best bit, I even explained later that I considered everyone capable of understanding these points, but not expanding their minds enough to understand, to show this was not an attack on anyone intelligence. An attack rather they do not appreciate or thinking really what I am saying. Well you must be missing a few out, because my positive rep was higher than that. I think because it was a ''religious'' topic (if you even want to call it that). I have people on one side who simply do not listen, then I have people that do not listen but eventually realize what I am saying.. like Ecoli. I think in the end, we kind of saw eye-to-eye. Respect almost.

Who cares. *******'s comments where an ad hominem. Saying it wasn't is absurd.

Well I'd like to think that if here, [people except a calculus introduction] there really should be one for physics. Physics is a wonderful topic which many of us could contribute too, including yourself Pmb.

I saw that Caps has made ''introductions to calculus'' which I thought was a reasonable introduction but could have been expanded. I feel perhaps these things could be good for people who come here directly asking questions about specific topics and could be redirected to these introductions. Has anyone thought of doing this for physics? If no one has, I'd be willing to write up a few posts and let it be continued by people who have more time.

Point? To me that sounds like favoritism. Like, you been here long so must be accepted. A point I made in the OP The only thing I was not capable of ''proving'' was some definate statistic of a God existing, but many of my posts where negatively repped when I argued the evidence against a God does not mean we have the right to say it is improbable. My post didn't even question orthodox science, it just questioned the ''normal clique'' involving the perspective of whether there is a superintelligence (God) in the universe. Neither side can offer a definite proof for or against, and I found it awfully big-headed of people to say evidence was in their hands to say it was in their favor against the objective of the OP. This isn't how science works.

Sorry about that. Fixed

Of course ******* is using ad Hominems. It's quite clear... the definition of an ad hominem is '' is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.'' Now lets just look at pmb's responses. He was trying to help ******* where he was quite obviously wrong. Now, where was ******* pointing out a negative characteristic? '' Originally Posted by ******** ever since you re-joined this forum you have seemed eager to prove me wrong every time I opened my mouth .'' That is clearly an ad hominem, on the basis that he is attempting to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic. Clearly.

Yet, we have a speculations area which may indeed lack the appropriate mathematics, hard evidence, proofs that might be required. So, if you create a thread in speculations does that mean you deserve to be negatively repped? I think you raise a good point. But I see this point as evidence people are more likely or tend to be more negative towards people and just take good contributions here for granted. An abuse of the system, again. You pointed out two posts Swansont. I have around 10 maybe more posts that have negatively repped in there.

Not true. I don't know who recently is liking comments, but those who have been aggressively disliking my comments have not weighed my generally good contributions to this place. The negative comments I have received have been born out of a discussion on the possibilities of a God. Fair? Does that tell you who have provided the best quality of content? If so, I call it out as rubbish. This I agree with.

And in other cases, a photon-photon interaction can give rise to other types of (forms of matter) [math]\gamma \gamma \rightarrow e^{-}e^{+}[/math].

That's a good idea also.

My OP was not intended to question any orthodox science. I just wanted to show that if there was a God, he could not know everything. If he did, it would be catastrophic for the physical world as we know it in physics. Maybe because of this, God does play dice with certain things. Einstein believed that everything has a purpose and danced to a mysterious pipers tune. In a sense I believe everything does have a type of determinism about it, but perhaps God set the world up to go a certain way without wanting to know the shabby details in-between. There is however one way a God could defy the uncertainty principle. That is by making a measurement on the position of a particle in the past then making a measurement on the future momentum of a particle and then recollect that information in the present time frame - Thus God then has both the information of the particles position and momentum simultaneously without violating the uncertainty principle. Perhaps God is not bound by time in this sense and chooses when certain information is ever known. This solution to my OP actually comes from the work of three physicists, David Albert, Yakir Aharanov and Susan D'Amato. Here is a ref to their work: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1_uE3yWP1pwC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=David+Albert,+Yakir+Aharonov+and+Susan+D%27amato+position+momentum+particle&source=bl&ots=5z19qi4L4q&sig=3bKasoZ96FCKdef4HSYOTUirJV8&hl=en&ei=1NieStjOL4Kz8Qb9sKy3Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=David%20Albert%2C%20Yakir%20Aharonov%20and%20Susan%20D'amato%20position%20momentum%20particle&f=false Their paper was actually called ''curious new statistical predictions of theoretical physics'' http://prl.aps.org/a...PRL/v54/i1/p5_1

I try to clarify myself if someone does not understand. I take the time out to rectify these problems --- it has happened a few times while being here and I don't mind rephrasing things to suit someones needs. Linguistically inaccessible? Like another language, or use of words that seem out of place? I don't believe I have these problems. I am certainly almost never off-topic, but I might be guilty for some excessive rambling but always on topic. Whoever is voting against my posts is clearly just not agreeing with what I have to say -- and most of the time I feel without just cause. Perhaps it would have been wiser to have a system which made you explain why you are giving a negative point to, just like you would have to explain yourself why you are reporting a post? And points taken on the paper publication. I wasn't thinking too deep about it. (Anyway) --- My views since this thread was created have not changed. Others have expressed similar views, people who have been here longer than me. Quibbles of ''what it's like'' doesn't matter. The system is (demonstrated) flawed.

It's ok, but as you can see, the moderators found it fit to move it to speculations.

Yes, it definitely is, but you know my view already pmb

Yes, we label them with names. A photon is a photon, a gluon is a gluon for instance. I certainly have never heard in physics that we consider that all forms of energy are interchangeable. Can you elaborate on this? I understand this is my thread, but give me something to work with first, like statements in physics I might be able to recognize. The only thing I can associate what you have said to, is the indistinguishable principle of certain particles. This might interest you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles

Thank you. I'd like to say that if I am logically outwitted, I usually do take such things with a humble attitude. Points taken. I think it is very different. If a paper is knocked back, there will be real scientific reasons behind it being knocked back. Some here will neg rep you if you call them wrong on something or they simply could have a distorted view of what you are saying or with a lack of the appropriate knowledge to pass judgement on a post.

Well, there is no such thing as a pure energy. Some nowadays like to refer to photons as being a ''pure energy'' but often if one thinks about it, there's little sense about it.

''with the correctION codes'' that should have been. First, thank you... however, I have been somewhat persecuted for saying that I believe a God is not outside the realms of science. If I show a somewhat belligerent nature I think some of the posters here first need to evaluate how they have been themselves before they rush to judge me. I certainly don't think others lack the ability to understand. I do believe however many people here are not trying hard enough to expand their minds to be able enough to understand. There is a difference. To add to the Super-Order, I think there are some interesting undertones to the Implicate Order by Bohm and the Holomovement in his interpretation of the causal aspects of the physical world. (Just thought I'd add this in).

Energy can be different forms, we know not all energy can be equal because they quite evidently, possess different attributes. A gluon is a quantum glue capable of gluing the quark particles together. It travels at the speed of light like a photon, but photons don't interact with each other - while gluons can. So you tell me please, how can all forms of energy be the same thing?

Super-Order; To me is the shadow of a superdeterminism. A deterministically-ruled universe which a type of overall order usually beyond observation evidence. Superintelligence; an intelligence above all other types of intellects or measuring devices in the universe. Hoyle speculated on a ''superintelligence'' and wondered if the universe had it in the form of a supercomputer located in the future horizon of our universe which was sending messages back and shaping the universe today as we know it. The thing about the supersymmetry was only a subject explaining how there can be hidden things within equations which make us ask the question ''is there some kind of design behind them?'' I've already demonstrated one kind of way to view it. The supersymmetry equations with the correction codes embedded within the equations raises a type of ''are we living in a computer generated world''? This point has obviously flew over the heads with most of you.

Depends on the nature of the equations. And if a unification can be achieved, it also hints at some super-order behind the universe. Think of it this way.. just entertain for a second there is a superintelligence in the universe. If we knew the equations which describe everything in the universe, then we would know the mind of God.

Well, you said, ''So should we now follow a process, similar to that undertaken a couple of hundred years ago, to prove that all froms of energy were equivalent? '' I certainly can't say a photon = gluon. So not all forms of energy are equivalent. As for the velocity quote, can you refresh my memory what it was I was talking about... maybe quote a larger piece for me.

I thought I had, when I was making my conclusions of the work at the end. Point taken. Yes, it was. <br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> Mass is definitely not fundamental, because it is a low-energy phenomenon. Mass appeared alongside geometry in geometrogenesis, when the universe had sufficiently cooled. Fotini Markopoulou has made some interesting contributions to this area of understanding. As for all forms of energy are equal, I would not agree with that statement. Energy is allowed to come in different forms, thinking it didn't would be unwise. However, there might be a fundamental particle - one in which all other types of energy decayed from. Some have even speculated that the universe arose in a soup of gamma radiation. Others, its a quark plasma.