Is the Theory of Everything Incomplete Without Including God?

[yanniru]

Find God in your TOE

All TOEs be they LQGs or String Theories are necessarily high energy theories; and therefore restricted to creation events like the Big Bang. You may see evidence of a God there, but it would not be the God of our low energy Universe.

I recommend looking into Dark Matter and Dark Energy for evidence of a God or intelligence or information.

Of course we first have to detect the constituent particles. It's not likely that even they would be found in a TOE.

yanniru

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by yanniru
All TOEs be they LQGs or String Theories are necessarily high energy theories; and therefore restricted to creation events like the Big Bang. You may see evidence of a God there, but it would not be the God of our low energy Universe.
I recommend looking into Dark Matter and Dark Energy for evidence of a God or intelligence or information.
Of course we first have to detect the constituent particles. It's not likely that even they would be found in a TOE.
yanniru

Any ToE is a description of the physical matter and rules that that follows, the energy is simply a part of that, hence there can be no conclusive evidence of God in the Physical matter alone, (even though, it is clearly a part of the totality of evidence) you would need to include all of the rest of the "Un-knowable", How do you do that?

 

[MythioS]

God=Time



MythioS

 

[Entheos]

I voted "yes" because I believe a theory of everything requires God, but I do not believe that Super String Theory requires God, however, it may but until it is proven/disproven we will not know.


Even if you are not a spiritual/religious person I think you have to consider that God exists in the context of a theory of everything, if nothing else consider yourself God. For what is God, but a creator? Do humans not create?

As PhoenixThoth's quote says: "love the world as yourself for, in truth, It Is."

Think of yourself as a piece of God, a single cell in the mind of God. Together we form the whole, but individually we are insignificant.

 

[Erck]

God the "whole"... is greater than the sum of it's parts "the universe."

 

[JesseBonin]

sentience? sembiance? some giant sitting on a cloud looking down on us and making a list?

entheos i think is closest to the truth
"i am the god i am" part of the original text of the first comandment best guess translation..
GoD may not be more than the premiss of something larger than ourselves, maybe our existence is a necessary ingredient to gods makeup.

maybe god is some adolecet who just lit a firecraker and we are the ultra-microscopic residents of the small explosion cought in the small rift in time/space created by the divergence of light..

 

[Erck]

maybe our existence is a necessary ingredient to gods makeup.

I certainly agree with this statement.

God is always being all it can be.

 

[sol2]

The Gravity in all things

God may very well rule the universe, but physics "has no need of that hypothesis" (Laplace).

A lot of issues have been placed on this alter:)

Of course, a trail has been blazed in GR.

What value would dimension be, if we did not give it some consideration?

 

[JesseBonin]

there are 2 sides to every coin (action and reaction so on and so forth) so if there is a "god" is there not also an "anti-god"

humans by nature have a tendency to put either too much or too little of themselves into any equation, but science, if it has shown us nothing, has shown us that everything exists in balance with itself.

as individuals we are almost insignificant to the whole, but as a race we are profundly affective (not a misuse, i mean affective not effective ) we are in essence the root of all we know and understand about GOD and the universe. OUR sembiant intelligence is far greater than our individual understanding.

that being said, it seems to me our "sembiant intelligence" could use a few lessons in things like "self preservation" and "conservation" """sorry, had to add that for some unknown reason"""

 

[sol2]

there are 2 sides to every coin (action and reaction so on and so forth) so if there is a "god" is there not also an "anti-god"

humans by nature have a tendency to put either too much or too little of themselves into any equation, but science, if it has shown us nothing, has shown us that everything exists in balance with itself.

as individuals we are almost insignificant to the whole, but as a race we are profundly affective (not a misuse, i mean affective not effective ) we are in essence the root of all we know and understand about GOD and the universe. OUR sembiant intelligence is far greater than our individual understanding.

that being said, it seems to me our "sembiant intelligence" could use a few lessons in things like "self preservation" and "conservation" """sorry, had to add that for some unknown reason"""

In a evolutionary context, it appeases the Gods?

 

[Erck]

there are 2 sides to every coin (action and reaction so on and so forth) so if there is a "god" is there not also an "anti-god

Only if god is relative and not absolute.

 

[sol2]

Only if god is relative and not absolute.

A lot of people divest themselves of probabilibistic determinations. Yet we find, orbiting imaginations, have this same brilliance, to manifest constructive things

 

[Erck]

sol2... I'm sensing some substance there... any chance you could restate that?

 

[Jimbroni]

Regardless of your spiritual beliefs or disbeliefs. God, Buddha, Christna, Satan, Ra, whatever all these have to be included in your definition of "everything" or else your definition is incomplete or perhaps theory of everything is really not what your after.
When you say everything, to me that means everything including all of our thoughts, dreams, beliefs, disbeliefs,math, science, well everything.
I personally like Grand Unification Theory as better more defined name.

 

[JesseBonin]

Only if god is relative and not absolute.

ahhh.. now we find the point at which religon and physics converge 8)

we call God "god" physics calls god "photon"

the principle problem with relativity is the existence of something we cannot measure "light" more specifically "photon"
all things we deem "real" have motion, therefor energy and mass, perhaps photon does not move at all, and is absolute stationary, therefor is must transfer "energy" by some other means (dark energy) we percive light (and by default everything that exists) by passing through this photonic energy. so if we make the next "leap of faith" is not photon the same god, or at least the essence of god??

 

[sol2]

sol2... I'm sensing some substance there... any chance you could restate that?

Certainly there is Uncertainty when it comes to position and momentum, but in the instance of orbital patterns, one can get around this?

So the question then is place out there about uncertainty, and what can be determined and what can't be?

I would say, that if such an action is contemplated, that it definitely has consequences. I just have to prove it?

Regardless of the nesessicity of having to prove it, life still goes on:)

Does this sound logical?

 

[Erck]

Regardless of your spiritual beliefs or disbeliefs. God, Buddha, Christna, Satan, Ra, whatever all these have to be included in your definition of "everything" or else your definition is incomplete or perhaps theory of everything is really not what your after.

But is it impossible to include a definition of god in a TOE?

 

[sol2]

Regardless of your spiritual beliefs or disbeliefs. God, Buddha, Christna, Satan, Ra, whatever all these have to be included in your definition of "everything" or else your definition is incomplete or perhaps theory of everything is really not what your after.
When you say everything, to me that means everything including all of our thoughts, dreams, beliefs, disbeliefs,math, science, well everything.
I personally like Grand Unification Theory as better more defined name.

Why not a belief, that such choices made, can hold relevances to the gravity of all situations. That some, operate independantly, having realized that such choices have consequences Maybe God, can do that? But us mere mortals, are locked into the entanglement issue

 

[JesseBonin]

you can call god anything you like, reguardless of specific beliefe. it all boils down to human need to believe that there is something greater than themselves. As humans we can deny that desire, but that is a belief unto itself and still propogates the "god" aspect of humanity. written into our very DNA is the need to discover and find hope or "develope" into something greater than that which we currently are or currently know. weather you study to find enlightenment, dive into the pool of drugs, or meditate endlessly the goal is the same. Is that not the work of god?? Our endevor to proove that there is a god is proof in and of itself that god does indeed exist.

as we delve deeper and deeper into our small universe we find more and more to discover, is this not the propegating effect we might name god? If god is not a reason to improve ourselves (or evolve) then what use would god be? and more importantly why would our belief in such an entity be important to that entity.

as we expand our knowledge and improve our ability to percieve do we not make god more powerful? or a least more present? again we downplay our importance in the universe. if all mankind perished, would the universe cease to exist? it would for us to be sure.

i say, what we percive as a people exist ONLY unto us. besides, if we all perished who would be left to tell us if the universe went on without us or not?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP)[/color]Certainly there is Uncertainty when it comes to position and momentum, but in the instance of orbital patterns, one can get around this?(SNoP)[/color]

The Certainty of 'uncertainty' is ours in our observance, it is NOT in the atom, nor in it's behaviour...begs what is actually uncertain in the first place, but alas it is the first place that we cannot find as to follow exactly absolutely all of cause and effect...hence a form of uncertainty is built into the system we inhabit...meant to be pre-requisites "belief" ergo belief systems...and so on...and so on...

 

[Jimbroni]

The Certainty of 'uncertainty' is ours in our observance, it is NOT in the atom, nor in it's behaviour...begs what is actually uncertain in the first place, but alas it is the first place that we cannot find as to follow exactly absolutely all of cause and effect...hence a form of uncertainty is built into the system we inhabit...meant to be pre-requisites "belief" ergo belief systems...and so on...and so on...

Well Said.

 

[Jimbroni]

Why not a belief, that such choices made, can hold relevances to the gravity of all situations. That some, operate independantly, having realized that such choices have consequences Maybe God, can do that? But us mere mortals, are locked into the entanglement issue

I would agree that such decisions one would make would have a profound effect on ones perspective, thus altering his/her/its :) logic. Which is why I personally would not try to include an intangible such as God into TOE and instead focus on GUT, but perhaps we don't have a choice or the initial cause isn't meant to be found. So like any scientific endeavor you need a control variable. I think the easy way out is to make God the controlled variable. :) That just feels funny to say that.

 

[Mike2]

I think a TOE would show how God created the universe. The existence of a Creator would be implied.

I've come to understand that God is the Logic that holds all things together. You cannot participate in an argument unless you accept the premise that logic is relevant and controlling. So if God is Logic, then you must start every debate, argument, and study with accepting the premise that God exists. God is not something you can prove any more that you can prove the existence of logic. God is just a starting premise for gaining wisdom.

A TOE is not complete until it explains everything physical. But questions do not stop until you derive physics from logic. For if we reduce physics to some other physical quantity, even though it unifies force, etc, it still begs the question as to where these more fundamental laws or entities came from. I've had this conversation many times on the Net. You cannot argue that God is in control so that everything is logical unless you can prove that physics can be derived from logic.

What is missing is to show how the events described about religon are consistent with the laws of physics and logic. What still needs to be explained is how the creation of life, the resurrection, a New heaven and Earth can come about. I believe it is all a matter of entropy. All these events seem to contradict the increase of entropy in all events in the universe. But I think that there may be a conservation of entropy for the universe as a whole. There is no alternative but that a universe exist. This is true at all times. So the Shannon information of a 100% probable event is 0. The Shannon information being equal to the entropy, there is a conservation of entropy in the universe as a whole. So as the universe disperses and increases entropy in one part of the universe, there should be a decrease of entropy in some another part of the universe. This may account for the physical necessity of life. This may account for why we, as decreased entropy creature, observe a increase of entropy for the most part.

So life is a decrease in entropy. There is a decrease in entropy associated with the construction of information storage devices such as a brain. And I think there may also be a decrease of entropy associated with a reduction of knowledge (information) to wisdom. For wisdom recognizes principles and precepts that reduce the amount of information needed because that information can be derived from just a few facts and applying principle.

Structures that maintain their coherence characterize systems of low entropy. So it seems as though a resurrection would also be a reduction in entropy. And I suspect that the New Heaven and Earth will be created as a result of the entropy reduction techniques of finding wisdom and being steadfast in sincerity.

 

[JesseBonin]

lets pretend that there is only 1 photon that exists in the entire universe and beyond
let pretend that this photon is either absolutly slow or super luminal
and the photon travels a path that weaves strands that braid themselves immensly dense (kinda like the weavings of a baseball) and that all matter/energy is permiations within this weaving of photonic energy. at some supremly complex series of vibrations sentient life is formed (you and me) and we visualize these permiations as the things we see and touch, smell, and hear so on... then ... if we are sentient then the power that permiates all things must also be sentient... you can go a step farther ... all thoughts, actions, choices, and discovery have been laid out befor you, pre-ordained. we discover nothing befor we are ready to discover them.

ask me about the single photon theroy on the "light speed" string

 

[sol2]

The Certainty of 'uncertainty' is ours in our observance, it is NOT in the atom, nor in it's behaviour...begs what is actually uncertain in the first place, but alas it is the first place that we cannot find as to follow exactly absolutely all of cause and effect...hence a form of uncertainty is built into the system we inhabit...meant to be pre-requisites "belief" ergo belief systems...and so on...and so on...

Respectively Mr. Robin Parsons

I am on trial here, and seeing the number of posts you have...the quote button is self explanatory.

Do you agree on a cosmological level there are dynamics going on?

Do you believe on a small level, there are dynamics going on?

Some talk about the "isometrical relationships" between the very small and the very large. Can GR and QM speak to this?

In the ring laser of Mallet, there is a "feature of GR" that is attractive.

Can http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@230.7Kl1bcYrOPl.0@.1dde4009/20 be described in cosmological events?

If we can use GR to describe features of experiments like Mallets, then what has been explained about the very small?

Has the fifth Dimension afforded us, a diffeerent perspective on uncertainty?

 

[sol2]

I think a TOE would show how God created the universe. The existence of a Creator would be implied.

I've come to understand that God is the Logic that holds all things together. You cannot participate in an argument unless you accept the premise that logic is relevant and controlling. So if God is Logic, then you must start every debate, argument, and study with accepting the premise that God exists. God is not something you can prove any more that you can prove the existence of logic. God is just a starting premise for gaining wisdom.

A TOE is not complete until it explains everything physical. But questions do not stop until you derive physics from logic. For if we reduce physics to some other physical quantity, even though it unifies force, etc, it still begs the question as to where these more fundamental laws or entities came from. I've had this conversation many times on the Net. You cannot argue that God is in control so that everything is logical unless you can prove that physics can be derived from logic.

What is missing is to show how the events described about religon are consistent with the laws of physics and logic. What still needs to be explained is how the creation of life, the resurrection, a New heaven and Earth can come about. I believe it is all a matter of entropy. All these events seem to contradict the increase of entropy in all events in the universe. But I think that there may be a conservation of entropy for the universe as a whole. There is no alternative but that a universe exist. This is true at all times. So the Shannon information of a 100% probable event is 0. The Shannon information being equal to the entropy, there is a conservation of entropy in the universe as a whole. So as the universe disperses and increases entropy in one part of the universe, there should be a decrease of entropy in some another part of the universe. This may account for the physical necessity of life. This may account for why we, as decreased entropy creature, observe a increase of entropy for the most part.

So life is a decrease in entropy. There is a decrease in entropy associated with the construction of information storage devices such as a brain. And I think there may also be a decrease of entropy associated with a reduction of knowledge (information) to wisdom. For wisdom recognizes principles and precepts that reduce the amount of information needed because that information can be derived from just a few facts and applying principle.

Structures that maintain their coherence characterize systems of low entropy. So it seems as though a resurrection would also be a reduction in entropy. And I suspect that the New Heaven and Earth will be created as a result of the entropy reduction techniques of finding wisdom and being steadfast in sincerity.

Mike2,

I have been reading your responses to Ranyart, but I have decided to stay out of that part of the physics forum.

You used entropy as a variable...and the logic from this...is that topology can be spoken to here? I am definitely open to corrections.

Now of course we can talk about the early universe, and what supergravity might mean here, and from the cooling nature, what matters, and action of space find discrete things form, and negative energy being expressed? A dualistic nature?

A supersymmetrical relationship forming in expansion?

I think then indeed the ideas here is to find a geometrical defintion that is indeed based on that logic.

The idea to assume the existence of something always "being", is a smart one because I find the logic of "nothing" falible right from the word g You can correct me here if you like.

Any corrections appreciated

 

[Mike2]

The idea to assume the existence of something always "being", is a smart one because I find the logic of "nothing" falible right from the word g You can correct me here if you like.

Any corrections appreciated

Time, of course, is a created things as well. So there is no "before creation", or pre-existing being. Time and being come into existence together. So "always being" is correct.

This is still the case if everything proceeds from a infinitesimal point (nothing). But to suggest otherwise, that something proceeded all at once, or that time proceeded from negative infinity with something existing before it expanded at time equal zero, both these suggestions preform the logical error of petitio principii, AKA begging the question. You are left without explanation as to where it came from.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well Said.

Thank you, but isn't it ironic that this Universe requires us to have belief systems, and yet makes such an example of solidity to us, sold as a rock, stable as a Proton, a need to believe in solidity...solid as in objective proof, no need to belive in it, it is self evident, truth...

Sol2 sorry for the time, but I have a tendency not to answer 'all questions' inasmuch as I need be carefeul of "not giving it all away" (Biblical advise actually)...perhaps, if I have the 'reading' opportunities, (time on computer) I will go read the links, maybe answer some of the questions, then again, who knows, maybe I can't cause I don't know the answer...yet...

 

[JesseBonin]

TOE = God ?

Above all else man seeks relations with God. (most men anyway) There is no everything without including this hard wired function of the human machine. To understand "Everything" we must first understand ourselves, a journey very few ever undertake. More importantly, our thoughts ARE significant in the grand scheme of things.

The search for god: Since the beginning of recorded history (and even discovered history) the human animal has had a relationship with "a higher power". We have in our history been wrong about a lot of thing we "believed" to be true. The desire to know god, i think is different in that this "hope" is something we are all born with. Instinct? genetic patterning? or something deeper and more sublime? Our desire to know "how it works" is undoubtedly the first step the kindergarten class of the school of omnipotance.

Understanding ourselves: If every journey begins with the first step, then man has not even begun his journey. To understand everything one must start somewhere, otherwise we discover parts of a jigsaw puzzle we have no idea how to assemble. What is the beginning? the simple answer is "you" or "me, myself and I" we need scientific and philisophic blueprint of ourselves to understand completely anything we interact with. Are we insignificant in the grand scheme of things? absolutly not. Its hard to explain presence, without first posing this question to yourself, Am i important? You are the beginning and the end of all of reality. When you pass from this life, reality ceases to exist, at least for the most important being in the entire universe, yourself. I am an illusion, as are all other people, places and things. We are voices within your reality to help you learn, discover, suffer if need be. Scientifically, we must also understand why we are, a much harder question to prove through science. We have to know why our molecule degredate, why our thoughts affect physialogical changes in our bodies and anatomy. How our thoughts and perceptions effect the reality around us. Do not be any less impressed by the mundane than the power it holds deserves. Our ability to comunicate complete thoughts gives our thoughts power beyond the imagined. Our thoughts do hold power and presence. On some level, the power generated by our thought patterns effect the world imediatly adjacent to us, slight changes in magnetic fields to small to measure, still have the ability to effect the world at some level. In understanding ourselves completely (provided everyone did this) we would find ourselves in perfect harmony with all things around us, creating an eden or heaven. Then our search in the heavens would be non-essential to our expansion throughout it.

As we evolve as a people, we learn more about ourselves and how we effect our world. Eventually, much like a virus, we will learn to live in harmony with our host. Until that time we are bound by the restraints of this reality and this life. I believe like anything else in this world, "focus" is our main neglect. we always seem to be focused on the wrong things. Learn how your atoms work, learn how your DNA is written, learn how your mind conveys thought so on, then we can know all there is to know about "everything"

8)

 

[Erck]

Nice post.

I'm wondering if knowing ourselves is just a first step, in being able to then, go beyond that which we have learned... to go beyond ourselves... to others... to god?

 

[sol2]

The Brane Scenarios

Time, of course, is a created things as well. So there is no "before creation", or pre-existing being. Time and being come into existence together. So "always being" is correct.

This is still the case if everything proceeds from a infinitesimal point (nothing). But to suggest otherwise, that something proceeded all at once, or that time proceeded from negative infinity with something existing before it expanded at time equal zero, both these suggestions preform the logical error of petitio principii, AKA begging the question. You are left without explanation as to where it came from.

I believe this assumption had to take place here, as always being, becuase it allowed one to see the cyclical nature of that reality. I do not know how otherwise this can be considered.

I believe the essence of this flunctuation if you will, of the mobius strip or the klein bottle serve us well to descirbe this issue of continuity in action. If you had discrete functions alone, you have isolated your self from the potential of the fifth dimensional perspective, which recognizes the matter distinctions we now see around us, as an effect of fifth dimenisonal perspectives.

I do not know if this is confusing things, but in regard to the vacuum, how else might we have uinderstood negative energy as contained in this realization that while matter distictions are real ( as we all see) that "now" is a manifestation of then?

There is not much (in Time) that separates this if you consider early comsological events to measures in weak field considerations (LIGO)?

 

[JesseBonin]

I'm wondering if knowing ourselves is just a first step, in being able to then, go beyond that which we have learned... to go beyond ourselves... to others... to god?

It is my belief that if or when we finally do know all there is to know about ourselves, the search for things beyond that will be already done.

(theory) If the universe is made up completely of Photonic energy (and all things known and unknown are permeations of this energy) the we ourselves are made of this same material. In finding ourselves we should find that every particle of what we are is an exact replica of the entire universe. Kinda of like a hologram, if you cut a hologram in half you do not get two halves of a picture, you get 2 complete pictures half the size. this is the holographic universe theroy. And everything we know about the atom and how it works compliments this particular theory.

I think that at the center of all atoms is the very fabric of reality, a photonic power source that defines how a particular atom acts and reacts. If we were somehow able to split our universe in two, what kind of energy release could we expect. On the other hand, if we were somehow able to Fuse together our universe and another, what then would the releaase of power look like?

The expansion of our universe is not unlike the expansion of an underground atomic test, the explosion causes fision of all local atomic matter and as the sundered atoms find refuge in other mass new material is created. if we could freeze a nuclear detonation and allow 1 second of time to elapse over 100 years, we may well find that microscopic star systems are formed, where life florishes in an instant of time. the speed of light would be the barrier of course. If we were to accelerate ourselves beyond the speed of light would we find ourselves suddenly on the outside of a nuclear test looking at our universe among zillions of others? in any model of the universe you have to account for yourself, weather our role in it is significant or insignificant we are still a part of it so we matter.

ALL current theories and past theories suffer the same deficiency, HOW?
how did the universe first start its expansion?
what caused the first boom? was there a first boom?
does the universe repeat itself over and over again?
even gravity won't explain how so much material compressed could generate enough energy to escape its own gravity. and all the searching in history has brought us no closer to understanding this. maybe there is a sentience beyond what we call reality, maybe, when our universe is about to die, our decendants will know of a way to "restart" the universe, and in that way provide ourselves with immortality. maybe we are the forfathers of god.

 

[Erck]

(theory)I think that at the center of all atoms is the very fabric of reality, a photonic power source that defines how a particular atom acts and reacts.

Is there a "source" inside the universe... inside the particle, the string, the wavicle? Inside the "thing" and the "no-thing?"

ALL current theories and past theories suffer the same deficiency, HOW? how did the universe first start its expansion?

How was there anything to begin the expansion?

 

[JesseBonin]

marvelous light

light is the answer
it is the only constant is our chaotic universe. All things come from it, and return to it. (warning: religous quote) "i am the LIGHT, and the way" from our earliest ancestors we see the importance of light.

all things produce light (things in the real world anyway) or is it the other way around, light produces all things? either way light is the only thing present in ALL things, the only thing we have in common with everything. Light wounderful Light.

People think that light is a wave .. or could light be absolutly still and solid? and we as the "irresistable force" are simple occupants of the time space paradox that situation produces? And it is our own "vibration" and "motion" that gives light the appearance of motion wave or otherwise?

we always seem to put the cart befor the horse as it were. Man always has to come out on top, so it is not us that is moveing, it must be the light. HOGWASH

If god is all things, all knowing, all whatever, then waht is the commonality in all things ... that's right boys and girls ... light (or photonic energy however you like it)

should we assume that nothing in reality is "at rest" let me clarify a little or reclarify as it were. everything we know as "mass" exists due to its motion, light is a by-product of that motions effect within the absoute stillness of Photon. you will as you read my wild meanderings notice that i refer to Photon as a singular thing. this is becouse i believe that there is only 1 photon. And either it is super-luminal and able to be in all places at all times, or it is absolutly still and our universe is within it. lately i kind of lean towards the later of the two explanations. Super-luminance would not explain the finality of light, whereas the still photon may. this is a lot easier to say than to actually explain. I am NOT a mathmatician (although i have studied quite a bit of it) quantum math is a little beyond my limited study. however, set the speed of light to zero and see what kind of answers you come up with.

i call god photon, and as in any belief there must be a "leap of faith" make yours how you choose, hell it can't hurt... 8)

 

[Erck]

A god full of a universe without a light, is just a bunch of wavicles running around bumping into each other in the dark. :-)

 

[JesseBonin]

LOL erck .. and thus reality lives on 8)

 

[Jimbroni]

light is the answer


we always seem to put the cart befor the horse as it were. Man always has to come out on top, so it is not us that is moveing, it must be the light. HOGWASH

QUOTE]

You have some very interesting theories about the constant nature of light.
I've notice you ellude to this in a lot of threads you've responded too.

I have one question I've been meaning to ask. If light or god or universe or photon is one solid medium and everything is energy flucuations and wave moving thru that then how are shadows cast?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It is in the very nature of light, inasmuch as, light, in transit, is invisible...hence "shadows"...more light bouncing off of one surface, and less off of another, cause all you ever see of light is it's interactivity with matter, otherwise you cannot 'see' it...that is why the Universe looks "inky black" when you look up at the sky at night...you cannot see all of the light that is actually there...


Does that help?

 

[Jimbroni]

It is in the very nature of light, inasmuch as, light, in transit, is invisible...hence "shadows"...more light bouncing off of one surface, and less off of another, cause all you ever see of light is it's interactivity with matter, otherwise you cannot 'see' it...that is why the Universe looks "inky black" when you look up at the sky at night...you cannot see all of the light that is actually there...


Does that help?

Not really :) Because the way I'm reading Jessebonin statement is that light is not in transit, which makes no sense in my mind. The very directional nature of shadows suggests light is coming from a source and can be blocked or redirected causing a shadow. (Standard Physical Model) I'm waiting to see Jesse's explanation on how shadows would work in a model were light is fixed and everything else isn't.

Actually in my mind, which is all screwed up. If Jesse changed light to time his theory would make a heck of a lot more sense. :)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Ok then you would like to know the "relativity of light intesities", hence shadows, because even in the shadow, there is light...and one last (perhaps) insight, if you deal with "light" as what it really is, EMR (Electro-magnetic radiation) and stop dealing with it simply on the level that we see, (visually) then the entire Universe is flooded with light, everywhere! no exception, just 'relative light intensities' due to travel times, and paths...

Does that help?

 

[Jimbroni]

Ok then you would like to know the "relativity of light intesities", hence shadows, because even in the shadow, there is light...and one last (perhaps) insight, if you deal with "light" as what it really is, EMR (Electro-magnetic radiation) and stop dealing with it simply on the level that we see, (visually) then the entire Universe is flooded with light, everywhere! no exception, just 'relative light intensities' due to travel times, and paths...

Does that help?

I don't disagree with you, light is everywhere, but do you believe that photons do not move and have zero velocity?

 

[JesseBonin]

You have some very interesting theories about the constant nature of light.
I've notice you ellude to this in a lot of threads you've responded too.

I have one question I've been meaning to ask. If light or god or universe or photon is one solid medium and everything is energy flucuations and wave moving thru that then how are shadows cast?

he is the simplest answer i could come up with, move your finger through a pool of water ond look at the wake. the only evidence we have of lights "wake" is shadow cast on mass. but if you are far enough away from a solid object you cast no shadow, becouse light fills in the space behind you.
to be more acurate, move your finger through the water very fast, youll notice that directly behind your finger a "vortex" is created where water seems to behave diferently that we would calculate, that is shadow.

 

[Jimbroni]

he is the simplest answer i could come up with, move your finger through a pool of water ond look at the wake. the only evidence we have of lights "wake" is shadow cast on mass. but if you are far enough away from a solid object you cast no shadow, becouse light fills in the space behind you.
to be more acurate, move your finger through the water very fast, youll notice that directly behind your finger a "vortex" is created where water seems to behave diferently that we would calculate, that is shadow.

What you are describing is a mechanical longitudinal wave, sound is a spherical longitudinal pressure wave. Light is not longitudinal it is a transverse EM wave. The term for what you are describing is diffraction.
Where we are getting hung up is not the mechanics of wave theory, but the mechanics of particle theory. You have been saying photons do not move correct? and that light is only a wave moving thru a medium which is nothing but photons. That is a very controversial statement because that's not what I learned in Physics.

My understanding is that photons are emitted and a shadow is an area where photon density is lower than neighboring regions. (ie review the double slit experiment)


Oh and sorry for taking us way off topic.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Since a flashlight, shone on a scale, will give a reading, all I can surmise is that it has energetic force about it, Pardon the pun, scaler force, hence the belief that it is a moving physicality as/of energy...more energy, in one spot, that is moving...

OK?

 

[JesseBonin]

Since a flashlight, shone on a scale, will give a reading, all I can surmise is that it has energetic force about it, Pardon the pun, scaler force, hence the belief that it is a moving physicality as/of energy...more energy, in one spot, that is moving...

OK?

excellent 8) but is the photon moveing, or is photonic energy effecting adjacent photonic energy that simple has the appearance of motion due the the energies effect on the molecules of the scale.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Mathematically you can reduce all of the factors to the point where this question arises, as a consequence of, the mathematically available perception... the truth of it, in reality, needs furthering of the proof of it, as to decide if it is the mathematical perception (model) that will persist, or some other observable reality...

Is that a good answer?...cause it isn't the complete one...not by a shot, near or long...

 

[Erck]

Is that a good answer?...cause it isn't the complete one...not by a shot, near or long...

A little "muddled" I'd have to say.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

A little "muddled" I'd have to say.

"I'll bite" what part?

 

[Erck]

Mathematically you can reduce all of the factors to the point where this question arises, as a consequence of, the mathematically available perception... the truth of it, in reality, needs furthering of the proof of it, as to decide if it is the mathematical perception (model) that will persist, or some other observable reality...

This part.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yes, well, clearly it isn't muddled to me, so if you don't tell me what part you find 'muddled' well, that is the end of the conversation...right?