The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Miscellaneous General
, , , ,
101

My apologies for such a late reply, but the burst of recent thread activity delivered to my inbox made me wonder what I replied to in the first place. It’s all coming back to me now…

Ok, perhaps you were using the term “processor speed” to refer to the time variable’s value in different reference frames compared to proper time, but I’m curious to know your explanation of “proper time” in this context and how its value could be determined relative to “the Universe.” Statements like that, along with the following:

… are leading me to suspect you don’t have a particularly firm understanding of what constitutes an inertial system. If you can’t explain your ideas without resorting to reified metaphors or acquiescence to the purported conclusions (let alone heterodox conclusions) of others, then you yourself don’t even understand it. Groucho would of course change his opinion were you to demonstrate some principles, reasoning, and progression of thought that made the ideas more compelling, or perhaps even used a well-articulated gedanken experiment.

-Groucho (formerly known as “Josh”)

102

Groucho wrote the following post at Tue, Jan 24 2012 4:58 PM:

I didn’t post this article here in order to “invite criticism of [my] Omega physics thing.” (You couldn’t even get its name right or its attribution right, so little do you known about it, despite my having posted this article which explains it, of which article is the topic of this very thread. So it’s rather clear that you didn’t even bother reading the article before becoming upset about it.) As with Austrian economics when properly exposited, the only options are to either accept the truth, reject the truth, or to not comprehend the truth.

I posted this article here in order to explain existence to people, and to thereby save souls.

Regarding your second paragraph, I have posted this article to many physics forums.

103

10/10. Deserves to stay on the front page another month.

104

Troll harder next time!

105

I have posted this article to many physics forums.

Links, or it never happened.

106

mustang19 wrote the following post at Thu, May 3 2012 10:00 PM:

Correct, Mustang19.

This article explains to people the nature of existence and what is required of them in order for them to obtain an ultimately desirable outcome, i.e., in reference to the afterlife.

But many would rather scoff than obtain knowledge, and to thereby save themselves. So deep is their government inculcation that they would sooner hold on to their etatist upbringing on this matter and be damned rather than to save themselves. As the state has taught us all that only it deserves reverence. Even those who call themselves anarchists (even anarcho-capitalists) are often caught in the trap of hipsterism, which is the snarky dismissal of almost all things which are not supportive of the state.

Nothing is more dangerous to the state than the possibility that people might actually come to regard the state itself as being against God. And so the very idea of God as being outside of what the state grants us to believe is the ultimate heresy.

107

@James Redford

I’m still waiting for you to define the terms I asked you about. In a previous post I stated that the parts you said explained the answers to my questions did not actually answer my questions.

If you continue to make false accusations against us in this thread, I will report you for trolling.

109

While I believe in God, it is purely by way of faith and intuition. There is no proof for God, nor should there be. Your scientific laws are not laws; they are merely inductive conclusions you decided to summarize as though you found the solution deductively. Also, the Big Bang cannot be God. The Big Bang is the stupidest explanation for anything I’ve ever heard of; naturally the scientists believe in it and not in God.

Nobody can comprehend the universe on a logical level due to causation. The uncaused cause is unknown–please leave all slippery slopes out of this. One thing we do know, though: we are not meant to know the origins (if there was any) of the universe because we do not know the origins of the universe. Otherwise, have fun playing with everything part of the universe you can sense. It’s pretty fun not knowing where we came from or where we’re going when you think about it. Life would be so boring with all the answers.

110

…we are not meant to know the origins (if there was any) of the universe because we do not know the origins of the universe.

How much logic have you studied?

111

gotlucky wrote the following post at Thu, May 10 2012 10:04 PM:

Report me for trolling? This is supposed to put fear into me, apparently.

If I were given to such fear then I would never have been able to write this article in the first place.

The whole point of this article is that it is a deprogramming gide to all the toxic mental waste which the government assaults us with from birth to death.

The terms I use in the article, if they be terms which could benefit with further explanation, are given elaboration within the article. There are technical physics terms which are used, but I still provide explanation for them in the article, while of course providing considerable references to the technical scientific literature should one desire even more insight.

At any rate, for more on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God’s existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .

112

Regarding the underlined, I listed the terms that did not have an explanation within the article. You may have, in fact, defined most of your terms. But the ones I named in a previous post were not defined. You listed where the definitions occured, and after looking where you suggested, I found no such definitions.

Regarding the bold, that’s great that you have given references elsewhere, but you should really just define the terms here that I requested, as you said they were defined, but they weren’t. And I don’t see why I should start running around looking for definitions when you could just put them here.

Anyway, you needn’t bother. I don’t expect you to honor my request. And I really don’t care anymore. It would have been nice if you just defined the terms, as they hadn’t been defined. But it’s been months, and I don’t really care to look into it anymore. If you want to define them so that others may look into it, then that’s your choice. But you needn’t make the effort on my behalf.

Good day.

113

gotlucky wrote the following post at Sat, Jun 30 2012 1:10 AM:

Pardon me, but I don’t know which are the terms that you wanted defined.

It’s not as if I use language in a strange and secretive way. I certainly use words that most people aren’t familiar with, but for the most part I use them in their dictionary sense (even if it be a science dictionary). If I deviate from some dictionary sense then I typically explain why it is that I am doing so while making clear what it is that I mean.

I am no trendy hipster who uses language in nebulous ways that can’t be pinned-down because it shifts with every usage of it even within the same text, hence rendering it meaningless. I definitely use “big words” that most people aren’t familiar with, but I use those words in concrete ways.

But I am quite familiar with the phenomenon of people disliking what I say, yet having no coherent rebuttal of it, and hence pretending that they are in ignorance of what I said due to some unclarity on my part.

For those who would like to learn about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God’s existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .

114

James,

Long time no see. Has God spoken to you in the interim?

115

Smiling Dave wrote the following post at Sat, Jun 30 2012 1:36 AM:

Of course, God speaks to me always. I am in communion with God. I am a tool which He uses. I am a biomechanical process formed for His usage.

But then, being a government-indoctrinated hipster trendy, obviously you scoff at that, even though the known laws of physics (which have been confirmed by every experiment to date) state that God apodictically must exist.

Karen De Coster has elaborated upon the phenomenon of what she has termed the “trained monkey” syndrome. Here I’ll mention the phenomenon of “dumber than dirt” which I have observed. You see, dirt has an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of zero. So it might at first seem that it’s not possible to be dumber than dirt, but in fact that is not actually the case. For dirt doesn’t actively do anything to threaten its own existence in the ultimate sense. Yet many humans do. Such humans are literally dumber than dirt.

Such dumber-than-dirt humans would rather follow their government-inculcated programming that they have received since their birth and be eternally damned because of it rather than to free their minds and become full children of God. Full children of God who have been given dominion over the entire universe.

As I’ve said before, for those who would like to learn about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God’s existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .

116

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/tipler.html

Asked and answered. Go away troll.

117

Nice find, Clayton.

118

Clayton wrote the following post at Sat, Jun 30 2012 3:46 AM:

Who are you referring to? If to me, then I cannot go away from my own thread. After all, it is my thread, and will remain so whatever I do or don’t do.

Thus also, if you are referring to me, then I cannot possibly be a “troll”, since this is my thread. If I were a “troll”, then that would mean that you are making the choice to post on a troll’s thread. But why would any sane person do such a thing?

The point here being is that you quite well know that I am no troll. Rather, you simply dislike what I am saying, yet you have no rational rebuttal to it, hence you merely have scare-words and insults in which to direct to me.

Regarding PanDeism’s video reponse to Prof. Frank J. Tipler, of course all of existence is God. Tipler has never disputed that.

Regarding Graham Oppy, he really doesn’t address Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology one way or another. His objections for the most part aren’t objections to the Omega Point cosmology, but to his own imagination. Many of Oppy’s criticisms concerned the uncertain nature of the Omega Point cosmology circa 1995, as if Oppy expected the Omega Point Theorem to be laid at his doorstep at that very instant. Instead, that would be presented in a few years hence.

We now have the Omega Point Theorem, i.e., the mathimatical proof per the known laws of physics (which have been confirmed by every experiment to date) that God exists.

To learn more about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God’s existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .