“”
How long does it take you to write one of those montrous tl;dr? My goodness…
“”
Hi, Gotlucky. To answer your question, not long.
If that is too long for you, then I’d hate to see what your attitude is toward books.
Almost witty, but it was tl;dr.
“”
Almost witty, but it was tl;dr.
“”
Then why are you even bothering to post to this thread if you have no intention of reading the following article which it concerns?
James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), January 13, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708
See Sec. 7.1: “The Haecceities of God” of the article.
Don’t reference it, just explain it here and now.
I see that you’re an adherent of epistemological relativism, which is the logical fallacy that truth is either infinitely malleable, utterly irrelevant, nonexistent, or unknowable. Yet on the contrary, truth exists, it is knowable, and it is independent of what anyone thinks or feels about it.
Actually, no, I really have no clue what you’re saying. If anything, I’m an adherent of Joseph Campbell, who’s spent a lot of time on comparative myth/religion. Instead of referencing a bunch of shit, just put in put in your own words what a god is, and a god’s role in the universe.
Must a god only create the universe, or can the god be created from the universe? (Thus, a god really isn’t the starting point, just another variable in the “equation” of how the universe works.)
Is a god omnipresent, omniscient, etc., or is a god fallible?
Is a god only metaphysical, or can a god exist within a physical realm?
The whole point of my writing this article is to explain such matters. The article is available for free, in case you didn’t know.
It just so happens that I’ve written an article on this very topic. For that, see the below:
James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), January 13, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708
I notice that many people’s reaction to this article is to treat it as if it’s haunted with evil spirits, and thus act as if they’re afraid to handle it much lest they become possessed by a demon. These are often the same people who attempt to clairvoyantly divine the article’s content rather than reading it. But I can assure you and everyone else that no demons lurk within its pages and that it is safe for all of you to read it.
Mr Redford,
-
Before I laid out the syllogysm, I quoted word for word, in the same post, where it comes from. Are you saying that you have contradicted yourself in that paper? If not, please explain what you did mean in that paragraph.
-
Thank God for the internet! The Omega Point, or is it the Flying Spaghetti Monster, has given us Wikipedia on Tipler. And lo and behold. Despite being published in journals, many see Tipler as a bit less authoratative than the Word of God. Just as Tim Tebow has been shown a false idol because he lost a football game, the Omega Point, too, has its critics [and don’t forget to look up what the footnotes say about Tipler. They show such disrespect!]. Being published does not mean being generally accepted in the scientifc community.
Mr Redford, thank you for drawing my attention to this fascinating subject.
Your “discussion” of that is merely a lengthy quotation from Stephen Hawking (p. 31 of your article):
That, to me, is a highly contingent proof.
Wikipedia, however, provides this:
In light of this, I can’t help but wonder whether the quotations you took from A Brief History of Time were isolated from their contexts - perhaps knowingly.
Finally, the existence of a “Big Bang” in the past doesn’t per se necessitate a “Big Crunch” in the future.
Any mathematical theorem, as a logical theorem, relies upon one or more premises - propositions that are assumed to be true.
As I mentioned in my last post, Stephen Hawking has apparently concluded, from quantum mechanics, that general relativity must break down at times less than the Planck time. I would say that this reveals a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics, but that’s just me.
General relativity and quantum mechanics aren’t physical laws - they’re theories. Just because they’ve been confirmed* by experiments performed to date does not mean they must be true.
And again, as I mentioned previously, even if a “Big Bang” actually occurred in the past, it does not follow that a “Big Crunch” must occur in the future. Hence the “Omega Point” is hardly inevitable - at least based on our current understanding.
Indeed, in your quote of Frank Tipler (p. 12-13 of your article), he claims that “astrophysical black holes almost certainly exist.” Almost certainly. That is in no way the same as “certainly” per se. Proofs deal with logical and mathematical certainty, nothing less. For him to use the phrase “almost certainly” means that his “proof” is actually nothing of the kind. Either he himself mischaracterized it as a proof, or you’re doing so.
- Indeed, these experiments may have only appeared to confirm them. Nothing is ever certain in science.
James Redford just so you know I’m not going to bother to read your 100+ page PDF file about something I don’t really care about, so either you define “god” here and now or don’t bother.
“”
Mr Redford,
-
Before I laid out the syllogysm, I quoted word for word, in the same post, where it comes from. Are you saying that you have contradicted yourself in that paper? If not, please explain what you did mean in that paragraph.
-
Thank God for the internet! The Omega Point, or is it the Flying Spaghetti Monster, has given us Wikipedia on Tipler. And lo and behold. Despite being published in journals, many see Tipler as a bit less authoratative than the Word of God. Just as Tim Tebow has been shown a false idol because he lost a football game, the Omega Point, too, has its critics [and don’t forget to look up what the footnotes say about Tipler. They show such disrespect!]. Being published does not mean being generally accepted in the scientifc community.
Mr Redford, thank you for drawing my attention to this fascinating subject.
“”
Hi, Smiling Dave. By your first reply apparently you found everything that I wrote to be correct (literally speaking–not sarcastically speaking), given that you felt the need to misrepresent the article’s arguments. Your “syllogysm” is not anywhere to be found in the article. In fact, in Sec. 7.1: “The Haecceities of God”, I specifically state that the First Cause in the abstract sense might not necessarily entail identification with God:
“”
Yet another traditional definition of God is the creator of all reality, which means that all causal chains begin with God. According to the Big Bang cosmology, all causal chains start at the initial singularity, which is the first cause. In the abstract sense, the first cause might not necessarily entail identification with God, since one might abstractly imagine that the first cause doesn’t have the other properties of God. But in the concrete sense of the known laws of physics, the first cause logically requires a state of infinite mind, i.e., the Big Bang initial singularity cannot exist per the known physical laws without the Omega Point final singularity. As well, the initial singularity is a different aspect of the final singularity.
“”
It’s actually the Omega Point final singularity which has the haecceities of God, which I detail in the aforesaid Sec. 7.1. Below is the first paragraph from that section:
“”
The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional definitions of God held by almost all of the world’s leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.
“”
I go on in that section to elaborate on the crucial haecceity of God, that of a state of infinite mind which knows everything that is logically possible to know.
In Sec. 3.1: “The Omega Point” I give the mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) that the universe must end in the Omega Point.
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 cosmology 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 science and physics journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology:
-
Frank J. Tipler, “Cosmological Limits on Computation”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP…25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.)
-
Frank J. Tipler, “The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers”, in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X.
-
Frank J. Tipler, “The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg’s Questions for Scientists”, Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: “The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg’s Questions to Scientists” in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114.
-
Frank J. Tipler, “The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation”, Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286…36T.
-
Frank J. Tipler, “A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation”, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf…H.
-
Frank J. Tipler, “There Are No Limits To The Open Society”, Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998).
-
Frank J. Tipler, “Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe”, NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694.
-
Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, “Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem”, arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T.
-
Frank J. Tipler, “The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant”, arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586…W.
-
Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent life in cosmology”, International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB…2..141T. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.
-
F. J. Tipler, “The structure of the world from pure numbers”, Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh…68..897T. Also released as “Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything”, arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world’s leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.
Prof. Tipler’s paper “Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe” was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler’s Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler’s said paper was an invited paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called “poster papers”).
Zygon is the world’s leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.
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 for the “Highlights of 2005” accolade as “the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website.” (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, “Highlights of 2005”, Reports on Progress in Physics.)
Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain’s main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal’s impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler’s 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a “letter” as defined by the latter journal.)
For much more on these matters, particularly see Prof. Tipler’s above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper in addition to the following resources:
James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), January 13, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp.
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist.
The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.
Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.
Note:
- While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler’s 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.
“”
Your “discussion” of that is merely a lengthy quotation from Stephen Hawking (p. 31 of your article):
That, to me, is a highly contingent proof.
“”
Hi, Autolykos. General Relativity has been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to reject this result is to reject empirical science.
“”
Wikipedia, however, provides this:
In light of this, I can’t help but wonder whether the quotations you took from A Brief History of Time were isolated from their contexts - perhaps knowingly.
Finally, the existence of a “Big Bang” in the past doesn’t per se necessitate a “Big Crunch” in the future.
“”
Your reading-comprehension is in need of amelioration, Autolykos. The above was addresed in Sec. 5: “The Big Bang” of the article.
That text from Wikipedia misquotes Prof. Stephen Hawking. The portion quoted doesn’t begin capitalized, but rather is in the middle of a longer sentence, which is: “It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe–as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.” What Hawking is referring to is the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Proposal, which has never had any experimental support and which violates General Relativity. As I wrote in footnote 65 of the article:
“”
In this book [A Brief History of Time] Hawking is himself dissatisfied with the implications of the Penrose–Hawking–Geroch Singularity Theorems, and on p. 67 goes on to reference the Hartle–Hawking No-Boundary Proposal [174, 187] that he formulated with James B. Hartle as an attempt to avoid the initial singularity, which Hawking writes about further on pp. 172–181, esp. p. 175. However, given the Singularity Theorems, the only way this proposal could be correct is if General Relativity is incorrect, i.e., that General Relativity is merely an approximation to true physical law.
“”
As Hawking wrote in this same book by him, “In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down.”
Regarding your last sentence, I never made that argument.
“”
Any mathematical theorem, as a logical theorem, relies upon one or more premises - propositions that are assumed to be true.
As I mentioned in my last post, Stephen Hawking has apparently concluded, from quantum mechanics, that general relativity must break down at times less than the Planck time. I would say that this reveals a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics, but that’s just me.
“”
That text you quoted from Wikipedia misquotes Prof. Stephen Hawking. The portion quoted doesn’t begin capitalized, but rather is in the middle of a longer sentence, which is: “It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe–as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.” What Hawking is referring to is the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Proposal, which has never had any experimental support and which violates General Relativity. As I wrote in footnote 65 of the article:
“”
In this book [A Brief History of Time] Hawking is himself dissatisfied with the implications of the Penrose–Hawking–Geroch Singularity Theorems, and on p. 67 goes on to reference the Hartle–Hawking No-Boundary Proposal [174, 187] that he formulated with James B. Hartle as an attempt to avoid the initial singularity, which Hawking writes about further on pp. 172–181, esp. p. 175. However, given the Singularity Theorems, the only way this proposal could be correct is if General Relativity is incorrect, i.e., that General Relativity is merely an approximation to true physical law.
“”
You go on to write:
“”
General relativity and quantum mechanics aren’t physical laws - they’re theories. Just because they’ve been confirmed* by experiments performed to date does not mean they must be true.
“”
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are known laws of physics. That simply means that they are physical theories which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. The only way to avoid them is to reject empirical science. Perhaps they aren’t part of the actual laws of physics, but there exists no rational reason to think that they aren’t.
“”
And again, as I mentioned previously, even if a “Big Bang” actually occurred in the past, it does not follow that a “Big Crunch” must occur in the future. …
“”
I’ve never made that argument.
“”
… Hence the “Omega Point” is hardly inevitable - at least based on our current understanding.
“”
Your foregoing sentence still doesn’t follow, even though your own phantasmagorical argument (which you implicity attribute to me) is wrong. The mathematical proof per the known laws of physics of the Omega Point cosmology isn’t based upon the Big Bang.
“”
Indeed, in your quote of Frank Tipler (p. 12-13 of your article), he claims that “astrophysical black holes almost certainly exist.” Almost certainly. That is in no way the same as “certainly” per se. Proofs deal with logical and mathematical certainty, nothing less. For him to use the phrase “almost certainly” means that his “proof” is actually nothing of the kind. Either he himself mischaracterized it as a proof, or you’re doing so.
- Indeed, these experiments may have only appeared to confirm them. Nothing is ever certain in science.
“”
As I wrote in the article regarding this matter:
“”
In the above, the phrase “almost certainly” (also called “almost surely” or “with probability 1”) is a technical term in probability theory that means the likelihood of an event occurring has a probability of 1 (with the range of possible values being from 0 to 1), i.e., that it is infinitely improbable that the event does not occur.23 However, another way to state the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that the universe evolves from less probable states to more probable states.24 An infinitely improbable state is not a “more probable” state. Hence, in order for an infinitely improbable state to occur would require violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Consequently, if the known laws of physics are true statements of how the world works, then the Omega Point cosmology is logically unavoidable.
“”
Appart from observations of black holes (via their gravitational effects), black holes are unavoidable in General Relativity.
Just to let everyone here know, my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, published at the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), has been ameliorated on January 20, 2012.
In addition to the link provided below, one can find links to this updated version in my originating post in this thread: the Theophysics links contain the latest version, and the WebCite links also contain the latest version if one looks on the date drop-down menu for the latest date.
James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), January 20, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708
Below is the new file information for this updated version:
Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
2,392,318 bytes
MD5: 33d94a4fda1dfdc6d0bc00ffdf7e4383
I did not find your response to my comment to be sufficient. You did not even respond to one question in it. You must have decided that it did not fit in to your pro god theory of everything and pretended i never asked it. I will wait patiently for your response.
Please explain to me how exactly you know that General Relativity has been confirmed by every experiment to date. Until then, I will simply take this as a statement of belief.
Having read Section 5, I’m assuming this early sentence is indicative of what you’re trying to say here:
So your reasoning seems to be that, when physicists arrive at conclusions which you see as supporting the existence of God, they’re correct. Otherwise, they’re incorrect. It appears that you’re begging the question here.
There always remains the possibility that General Relativity is indeed only an approximation to true physical law. Uncertainty lies at the center of science.
I fail to see how the full-sentence quote of Hawking changes the meaning at all. Perhaps it would be more accurate for the Wikipedia article to quote his full sentence, but that’s about it. What the Wikipedia article expresses is already accurate - that Hawking had later decided that quantum mechanics can be used to remove the postulated singularity at the beginning of the universe.
I don’t own a copy of the book, but apparently Hawking’s use of the phrase “real time” is meant to contrast with “imaginary time”. But surely you already know that, having read his book, so why not bring it up?
Quoting your article:
Some physicists believe that, because they believe there was a “Big Bang” and because of the amount of matter (allegedly) observed in the universe, that there must therefore be a “Big Crunch” at some point in the future. I figured that’s what you were appealing to when you appealed to “the known laws of physics”. If that’s not the case, then please clarify.
That’s my point - Hawking’s later revision (if not outright abandonment) of his singularity theorem seems to point to a contradiction between General Relativity and quantum mechanics, IMO.
If “known laws of physics” to you means “physical theories which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date”, and if other people don’t think those two terms mean the same thing, then why not use only the latter term?
Can you logically support your claim that “there exists no rational reason to think that [General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren’t part of the actual laws of physics”?
Then what would you say it’s based on, exactly?
First off, how do you know that Frank Tipler was using “almost certainly” in that sense?
Second, even if he was using it in that sense, his statement alone has no meaning other than as a claim asserted by him. He would need to demonstrate that the probability of black holes existing is equal to one, or that the probability of black holes not existing is infinitely small.
Third, according to Wikipedia:
Since we’re dealing with science, and science deals with theories, that means we’re dealing with theoretical possibilities, aren’t we? So for Frank Tipler to say that black holes “almost certainly exist” - assuming he’s using “almost certainly” in its technical probability-theory sense - means that he’s nevertheless implicitly admitting the theoretical possibility that they don’t exist.
Regarding your claim that black holes have been observed “via their gravitational effects”, that means they haven’t been directly observed at all. The gravitational effects (allegedly) observed have been ascribed to black holes - nothing more. And finally, there remains the theoretical possibility that General Relativity is incorrect.
Make sure you replenish the calendars with Daily Calendar Refills. You can also highlight important activities on your calendar with Label Pads. If you need to use non-jam and high quality paper to print, Sparco Paper is your best choice!
One overarching curiousity is why you would choose the Mises Institute forum (which as far as I can tell, is for discussions related to Austrian economics and the people, events, and issues that relate to it) as a place to invite criticism of your Omega physics thing.
I would think there are many more folks at the Physics Forums who would be able to discuss many of the technical points of your article in fine detail and with footnotes. Have you tried it?
Hi, this is God. I’ve just comandeered z1235’s account to say that James is 100% correct.
Still waiting on his definition of a god.