Dear James Redford,
You play this out like it's a game. And because your argument is mathematical we're not even supposed to be allowed to argue against it. That's pathetic.
I'll come back to my initial point. In physics, nothing is ever proven. Every working theory is only provisional. If a theory, even one with a flawless track record, predicts something that we haven't yet observed (like the Higgs Boson), physicists will never say that that thing is proven to exist. That's just not how physics works. The thing (e.g. the Higgs Boson) is only said to exist if it has actually been observed.
So, the statement in the thread title is false. You try to keep us from seeing that by dazzling us with hours and hours of videos and lots and lots of links to articles that even most scientists will have trouble with. But that's no use. You've already lost. Your position cannot be defended by logic or maths. It can only be defended by observation.
Hi, WilbertK. If a physics theory makes predictions which are empirically falsified then that physics theory is incorrect as applied to the observable universe (at least it's incorrect without modification). However, the predictions made by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) have been confirmed by every experiment ever conducted. Perhaps said known laws of physics are wrong, but there is no experimental reason to believe so.
And as I already said, the field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems which proved that singularities necessarily exist per General Relativity and given attractive gravity. Likewise, 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 field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)
For much more on the foregoing, see my article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", and see the following resource:
James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID:
jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo ,
http://archive.is/a04w9 ,
http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761.
http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ ,
http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ ,
http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp
FYI, there has been further support of this Pauli-exclusion oriented view in studies of the neutron structure itself. Apparently it's more like an oreo cookie with a negative shell and negative core, with a positively charged layer in between.
