Reality isn't necessarily confined to applied science. Only a dogmatic/religious physics would insist that reality is so confined, as several posters on this thread seem to have done.
That sure looks like spirit in matter to me. I'm thinking that we're back to where spirit and matter meet and become One. It's where the Soul of God sits in the physical body of Jesus.
The divine Word is in large part the material Wind/Breath (the Third Person) exuding from God's mouth and nostrils:
When it comes to being dogmatic about reality, you deny evidence even when it comes from physics experts, such as the links I provided.
And when our assertions about it look like gibberish, it's time to stop taking them literally.
Here's two assertions:
I was speaking from faint memory pertaining to 12 years ago. I don't really know for sure what his background was, and there were PLENTY of experts/articles on that site. I doubt they were undergrads.An undergraduate student as an expert,, you are a funny dude.
That first article (the one I wrote about) was authored by James Sullivan, professor of physics:An undergraduate student as an expert,
Individuals with limited understanding find many things gibberish.
By gibberish I mean incoherent. Basic equalities in math are coherent, and more advanced ones are, by extrapolation, generally coherent. Beyond that, it depends what's on the right and left of the equation. If one side of the equation has "c" where "c" is presumed to be the constancy of light speed in all reference frames, that already sounds incoherent, because it seems to logically contradict the very concept of relative speeds. Notice that, in making this assessment, the basic component parts (light, speed, relative speed) are FAMILIAR to me. I wouldn't try to assess statements whose constituent parts are unknown to me like the one you gave.Individuals with limited understanding find many things gibberish.
On the subject of non Euclidean geometry do you find this statement gibberish;
Because
(a) It is completely meaningless to you like a language you are unfamiliar with.
(b) You have a profound understanding of the subject greater than any mathematician and are qualified to pass off the statement as gibberish.
Be honest now.................
Yet you did.
You did it in your own mind .. which is precisely what defines the concepts of both space and time.JAL said:
Your non answer by deflection is an answer in itself.
