Jump to content

James Redford

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-11 Bad

About James Redford

  • Rank
    Quark

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA
  1. Hi, Endy0816. Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural,
  2. Turning water into wine is perfectly allowed within the known laws of physics. The process which Prof. Frank J. Tipler proposes for the miracles of Jesus Christ uses baryon annihilation (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved), and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. Tipler also proposes that the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary could be possible via Jesus being a special type of XX male who obt
  3. Hi, Bill Angel. Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law--rather, they are events which are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world. As Augustine of Hippo wrote concerning mir
  4. Hi, Iota. The Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. 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].) Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number f
  5. See my previous reply to you above. The Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) is mathematically required by the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point TOE is to reject empirical science. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has pee
  6. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles
  7. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 f
  8. You need to read more closely Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", as I give the following examples said irony: To date only two physicists have criticized Tipler's Omega Point cosmology using the Scientific Method's process of peer-review, they being physicists Prof. George Ellis and Dr. David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation. In the 1994 paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynam
  9. Your unknowledgeability and social framing are the reasons you did not understand what I am saying, even though I wrote perfect English. We have had a Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics for some 30 years with the arrival of the Standard Model of particle physics, since the Standard Model describes all forces in nature except for gravity. The Standard Model is a quantum field theory, i.e., it involves Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics. And gravity is described by General Relativity. The problem has been to make General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics co
  10. Hi, Andrewcellini. It would help you if you would actually read the originating post of this thread before replying with such an antifactual and unknowledgeable statement. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. Below are some of the peer-rev
  11. People have attempted refuting physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, but none have succeeded. For for details on how criticisms of the Omega Point have been faulty, see Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything". As I show therein, when Prof. Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler’s case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that's the expected result, s
  12. No refutation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. For for details on how criticisms of the Omega Point have been faulty, see Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything". See said section of my aforementioned article regarding your said post.
  13. Because horrific events, including mass-death the likes of which has never been seen before, are going to occur on the world stage and I want people to know why they are occurring when they do come. I make no money from my article, nor do I promote myself, as I have nothing for sell. No refutation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. The Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mecha
  14. From John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1989): "" felicitous, a. (fɪˈlɪsɪtəs) [f. felicity + -ous.] Characterized by felicity. ... 2. Of an action, expression, manner, etc.: Admirably suited to the occasion; strikingly apt or appropriate. ... 2.b Of persons: Happy or pleasantly apt in expression, manner, or style. ""
  15. Your statement is an "if X then Y" formulation, which is an assertion of logical connection. But it doesn't follow in regards to your statement.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.