Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which is why most physicists consider QM to supersede GR in those rare cases where they overlap; as good as GR is, QM is better.Ok. Apparently I'm in the QM camp.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.
Discovery Changes Understanding of Neutrons | LiveScience
Testing QM and GR separately isn't the same as testing OP. If you want to test OP you have to predict what happens where QM and GR meet, and test that. These predictions have to be predictions that cannot be made by QM or GR. Only if you do that, you are testing OP. If you don't do that, you're just speculating.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't compatible. So if you assume they are both 'correct' then your argument is invalid.the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't compatible. So if you assume they are both 'correct' then your argument is invalid.
You're taking these theories well outside the scope where they're applicable. This is beyond unscientific. It's nonsensical.
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.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't compatible. So if you assume they are both 'correct' then your argument is invalid.
You're taking these theories well outside the scope where they're applicable. This is beyond unscientific. It's nonsensical.
When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That's a mind-expanding thought, isn't it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event which created the universe. I saw that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by supercomputers using fractal geometry equations.
The ancients knew of this. They said Godhead periodically created new universes by breathing out, and de-creating other universes by breathing in. These epochs were called yugas. Modern science called this the Big Bang. I was in absolute, pure consciousness. I could see or perceive all the Big Bangs or yugas creating and de-creating themselves. Instantly I entered into them all simultaneously. I saw that each and every little piece of creation has the power to create. It is very difficult to try to explain this. I am still speechless about this.
It took me years after I returned to assimilate any words at all for the void experience. I can tell you this now; the void is less than nothing, yet more than everything that is! The void is absolute zero; chaos forming all possibilities. It is absolute consciousness; much more than even universal intelligence.
I have not read that book, so I can't really comment on that, but if I did see any similarities, what would you think was the significance of that?WilbertK.....do you notice any similarities between the description of the Cyclic Model of the Universe as given by Stephen Hawking in his book Stephen Hawking's Universe with the description of a seemingly similar thing by a near death experiencer?
Where did you get this idea? This doesn't sound anything like what was previously discussed in this thread.You have to accept that evolution is on some kind of track to create ever more advanced, and more conscious, and more spiritual beings. Then if you add billions of years then evolution creates god-like beings. These god-like products of evolution then resurrect their ancestors, (we get resurrected and live in our future world) heaven. Does that sound like Christianity to you?
Actually, yes, it does. The book of Revelations talks about how all the dead will rise again (hence Catholic disinclination to be cremated), and that there will be a new, second, heaven and Earth. The scenario you describe above matches that rather nicely.Omega Point Cosmology is not considered part of mainstream physics. The physicists who promote it are considered more science fiction, than science. Also you have to accept evolution to believe it. You have to accept that evolution is on some kind of track to create ever more advanced, and more conscious, and more spiritual beings. Then if you add billions of years then evolution creates god-like beings. These god-like products of evolution then resurrect their ancestors, (we get resurrected and live in our future world) heaven. Does that sound like Christianity to you?
It's poor manners to plagiarise; if you're going to copy Douglas Adams, at least cite him.The whole argument runs, roughly, as follows.
(1) God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.
(2) Man then counters that the Omega Point is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. So the Omega Point proves that God exists - but hence also, by God's own reasoning (see 1) that God does not exist.
(3) God says that (S)He hadn't thought of that (hadn't thought of 2) and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
It wasn't plagiarism, it was an homage, and I thought one obvious enough not to need citation.It's poor manners to plagiarise; if you're going to copy Douglas Adams, at least cite him.
It wasn't plagiarism, it was an homage, and I thought one obvious enough not to need citation.
It's poor manners to plagiarise; if you're going to copy Douglas Adams, at least cite him.
It wasn't plagiarism, it was an homage, and I thought one obvious enough not to need citation.
Yep, derivative works don't require citation. Though that last part seems a bit convoluted.
Whoops, my mistake :o:oSorry Wiccan Child, it wasn't plagerism, but a derivative work.
The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?