Religious people aren't built for logical debate.

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by universaldistress, Mar 6, 2011.

  1. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    The two 3D quantities of 4D hypervolume are distance^3 (space) and time*distance^2 (energy). Energy moves through space.

    Time is the dimension that bounds, not extends, three-dimensional space. Unit hypervolume is the internal product of time and space, but it is also the product of energy and distance.

    The speed of light is the one and only dimensional equivalent between space and time. Energy density is the 4th-dimensional slope of space.

    Just as Planck’s constant is the four-dimensional quantization of photons, elementary charge is the four-dimensional quantization of particles.

    Photons are the encapsulation of time by space; particle fields are the encapsulation of space by time.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I am not a great one for maths but this is essentially similar to something I read in a Frank Herebert book. If one could locally or universally return atoms to their previous positions on a large scale then a duplicate of a previous pancake could be produced and therefore cheat at time travel?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    This has a certain beauty in its unification.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    But is it possible to tie ALL together within mathematics?

    For me mathematics are difficult because it is out of my area of expertise. I am foremost a fiction writer, philosopher and explorer of infinity. I suppose I explore infinity because my maths isn't good enough for a more down to earth exploration. I leave the math to the trained. Leave wild conjecture to me. If they like it they'll do the math?

    How far have you delved into the numbers side of it?
     
  8. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    I don't do math either, aside from 1 + (-1) = 0.
     
  9. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    There are only two stable matter particles, the electron(+) and the proton (+), because, I suppose, there are only two ways to make them. (A photon is neutral since its has both a positive and a negative aspect).

    All is as would be expected, from we we observe, the simpler and simpler less, and less stable, giving way to the simplest state, unstable nothing, that cannot be at all.

    So, all in all, the real is still as real as real can be, of the comings and goings, ex nihilo, the only source, a continuing process everywhere and always, where the buck stops, the first causeless cause.
     
  10. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Now, it would be interesting to go even further, to see if existence is the only way it could be, as ever made possible by the only two possible stable matter basics.

    Why only two, the electron and the proton, and their antiparticles? And why antiparticles, for that [anti] matter? And why opposite polarity of charge?

    All ever points to the balance of opposites from the distributed zero balance of nothing.
     
  11. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Attempting to disprove the presence of God through logic is a misuse of logic.
     
  12. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Then how? Quantum physics or metaphysics!
     
  13. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Metaphysics doesn't exist, so it's rather impossible to use it. As such, it is a total misuse of the useless.
     
  14. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Wormwood.
     
  15. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I had a bottle of Absinthe over christmas, though its consumption in no way (that I am aware of) sculpted my mindset presented heretofore, present forewith or whichever prescienced derivation :runaway:
     
  16. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    The Creation of the Universe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The new WMAP satellite detected gravitational waves,
    revealing this image​
     
  17. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Oh my GOD now I believe. I promise Goddess to put £20 in the dish every sunday.
     
  18. sifreak21 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    I do believe they found to actually halucanate with that shit you have to drink 2 complete bottles in a rather short period of time.. in which case you would die from alcohol poisoning long before that
     
  19. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Finding god might be a goer. Losing god is impossible.
     
  20. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Doughnut infinity. This seems plausible, though of course one has to conceptually overcome the issues of scale. I am still playing with the idea of a doughnut. It is either that or just an extension of infinity forever larger larger larger, or smaller smaller smaller. Each model presents different conceptual cons to overcome. Especially if one tries to form a coherent model of interacting levels, that could possible merge back into themself of a differing scale.

    But there is a finite amount of space on the internal unless this model is added to? Is there a singularity in the middle possibly? Or is the reduction in size/scale the singularity which is never able to reach its midpoint (or connects to the large)? I suppose this is possible, and indistinguishable from an scaled opened doughnut? It is a way of making infinity containable, conceptually.

    I like the idea and it is a much more conventionally pleasing possibility than mine.

    Duplication. I do see the logic in this, and there is a lot of weight behind this at the moment in the physics community. I have seen Tegmark offering up the last point stuff on 'Horizon' I think.
     
  21. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Pancakes model. Some suggest a similar model (in structure) for a multiverse where parallel universe are stacked up but are either inhabiting the same space of slightly phased to an above or below position conceptually.

    The only reservations I have in any of these models is their refusal to really tackle the issue of infinity. Instead it is always shepherded into a finite conceptual space so people can visualise it better. I prefer to visualise infinity as it is, and not try to wrap it up in a bow.
     
  22. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Each one of the pancake spaces would actually be infinite. 'Pancake' was just to help the visualization.
     
  23. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Saying something is infinite is fine but what is the true nature of that infinity is what I meant. I suppose there are lots of theories that do attempt to tackle this. Not that I have been exposed to very many whilst dipping in the mainstream. Conceptualizing infinity as doughnut or funnel or other is fine I suppose but does it stop a lot of theorists taking the step into actually tackling infinity thoroughly. Is it even worthwhile to tackle it anyway as it is something that may never have relevance?
     

Share This Page