Is the Theory of Everything Incomplete Without Including God?

[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?

 

[Erck]

I apologize if my choice of word was questionable... I really should have said "I don't understand what you are saying, would you mind rewording it?"

I find the whole part I quoted less than clear... but maybe it's just me.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

OK, given the ability in mathematics to cut everything fine, you can cut lightspeed into enough divided pieces, times, as to give the appearence (arising) that light has actually stopped, relative to time...a bit like Xeno's 'paradox' just not to absurdum, hence we get the apearence arising that photons don't need to move just the energy about them as we still need to resolve the transferences that we do observe...then we have the last part, which simply says, we need better proof before we can know if it is just a 'trick' of the math, or really the realities manner of operation...

Is that better?

 

[Erck]

Yes, that is better, thank you.

 

[pepcin7]

ready?

ok.

here we go.

me = God = you.

that's it. no more, no less.

what does that equation MEAN?? excellent question. I've been asking myself that question my whole life. and i think I've known the answer before I've known the question.

of course, you have to define what "me" is. this is HARD. it requires self examination. not easy.

then you have to define what "=" means. this is HARD. VERY hard to put in three dimensional terms. I'm going to have fun with this one. it’s like a double chemical bond or something.

then you have to definte what "God" means. this is HARD. again, self examination and examination of God and the nature of God.

then i have to define what "you" means. this is HARD. i want to examine you.

the definitions will NEVER be complete in any sense. the question is will the definitions be complete enough for you to be satisfied. you may think your levels of dissatisfaction are limitless, and believe me, i know the feeling, but you can still your ego when you choose to. remember, you can choose to do anything you want. do, or do not. there is no try.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

I like what you say. I am god and so are you and so is everything else. I don't think it fits well here as you give no coroboration and no evidence and no physics. you just make the statement, as did I. We may be rare but I think we know. ahh, I know we know. If you don't know that you know that then you don't. I don't claim to understand it, or do I claim to understand many things about this fantastic world. Only that I am part of it and it me and being that the world is dominated by fear cause many don't know this and that they are immortal it is hard to see sometimes because of the conciousness projection and belief in limits and scarcity. But it's ok. It doesn't really matter yet paradoxically we are all priceless and the universe is benevolent.

 

[JesseBonin]

"i think, therfor i am" modern philosophy. Perception mathimatical or otherwise is still the root of all discovery. Have you ever stood in the rain, and tried to dodge rain drops? excedingly hard to do, until you realize the awesome power of discovery and invention and open your umbrella. I cannot dodge the rain, but i can deflect it, and that is power over the elements of a sort. Infection was a death sentence until some clever folk stumbled upon penacillan. Maybe these analogies are too vauge, let me try and simplify my idea but better explain the premiss.
I does not matter if lights is moving 188,000 m/s or if it is perfectly still, lights motion is inconsequential. The important part is its finality, it provides us with a stable platform to develope real mathimatical proof of all things. (god included)

As it stands, we have to trudge through a mindless bog of the heaviest math known to man to define anything in our universe, from the simplest atom to the most complex quasar. the math we use is neccisarily difficult due to the "intangent" light.
let me give you an example. if we take e=mc^2 and give light a value of 1 then the equation breaks down to energy is equivilant to mass. bare in mind, the current scale for energy is based on the older equation. the newer equation would require a new scale as far as measurement is concerned.

for instance. a thing with .0013 mass currently would have an energy of 117,000,000
what does that number represent other than a scaled number?

by unifieng the 2 scales we can calculate other anomolies with simple math. algebra, geometry, calculus .. in this way we negate the need for quantum math altogether.

it really is a matter of perception, if we view light as an intangent then we must account for "chaos" and by definition it is impossible. God, i think, WANTS to be discovered.

 

[JesseBonin]

I like what you say. I am god and so are you and so is everything else. I don't think it fits well here as you give no coroboration and no evidence and no physics. you just make the statement, as did I. We may be rare but I think we know. ahh, I know we know. If you don't know that you know that then you don't. I don't claim to understand it, or do I claim to understand many things about this fantastic world. Only that I am part of it and it me and being that the world is dominated by fear cause many don't know this and that they are immortal it is hard to see sometimes because of the conciousness projection and belief in limits and scarcity. But it's ok. It doesn't really matter yet paradoxically we are all priceless and the universe is benevolent.

maybe god wants to be discovered becouse WE want to be discovered

 

[sol2]

I really do not know if this answers the question, but the thought of the No Boundary theory seems interesting

What is needed, therefore, is a definition of asymptotically flat space-times that allows one to overcome both the problem of “where infinity is” and the problem of simulating an infinite system with finite resources. The key observation in this context is that “infinity” is far away with respect to the space-time metric. This means that one needs infinitely many “metre sticks” in succession in order to “get to infinity”. But, what if we replaced these metre sticks by ones that grow in length the farther out we go? Then it might be possible that only a finite number of them suffices to cover an infinite range, provided the growth rate is just right. This somewhat naive picture can be made much more precise: Instead of using the physical space-time metric to measure distance and time, we use a different metric , which is “scaled down” with a scale factor . If can be arranged to approach zero at an appropriate rate, then this might result in “bringing infinity into a finite region” with respect to the unphysical metric . We can imagine attaching points to the space-time that are finite with respect to but which are at infinity with respect to . In this way we can construct a boundary consisting of all the end points of the succession of finitely many rescaled metre sticks arranged in all possible directions. This construction works for Minkowski space and so it is reasonable to define asymptotically flat space-times as those for which the scaling-down of the metric is possible. Jörg Frauendiener

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-1/articlesu1.html

 

[JesseBonin]

lets suppose a single sentient thing existed. let's suppose this thing decided to see what would happen if it moved. So it moved . a 1 dimensional thing begins to move in a 2 dimensional loop. now this thing enjoys this but it still lacks the maximum possible enjoyment, so it starts to add some s turns in its track, "wow" it says, when i add this "s turn in my path here, it makes my path a little awkward over there. "i wounder what would happen if i add a couple dips and hills in my s-turn" "incredible" says the entity. "by adding that dip and turn i have created something that appears to have mass" (use your immagination a little LOL) "i wonder what would happen if i let my path cross over itself here" ,,, "unbelieveable, my track seems smaller even though i know its the same length, and it looks like a created a great burning sphere, i will call it "atom"" "well let's add, oh i don't know, 10^10^10^10^10 turns and the same amount of dips and the smae amount of rises and the same amount of crosses" "i think i will call this "star" and this over here i will call "planet" and this," HEY!" that thing is moveing, and its thinking, i will call you "man" hopefully you get the gist.

one thing started it all, let's call it "photon" and since all things are essentially created from it, its "energy signature" is embedded in all things (light) and since all things are permeations of this "track" or "string" we are bound by the tracks "energy" (gravity, magnetisim, dark energy) and since "photon" enjoys adding complexity to ris race track the track itself "appears to get smaller and smaller" of course that would have the opposite effect on our perception due to the fact that our little part of the "photon race track" gets smaller faster than the whole track does, so it looks like the universe is getting bigger or expanding.

 

[Erck]

The "point" expressing itself?

 

[pelastration]

The "point" expressing itself?

... and if we start with only a point ... it has a boundary. OK? non-breakable. Whatever shape or structure it will have or evolve to or expand ... it will have that boundary.
Since there is nothing except that point ... nothing can break or cut it. No Universal Scissors.

 

[Erck]

The point, the "thing"... always comes with the "no-thing."

 

[pepcin7]

I was the guy who wrote that (less than easily read) part about God and knowing it. Here are a few things I find interesting about the world of physics and it's apparent quandaries. The big bang. Who thought of it? Oh I know who; I say that only to make a point. At first glance if you believe in a god then this seems just fine; it works with what you know. but if you are a physicist then it just leaves you with many many more questions and theorizations than you could ever start to cope with. For example. Was there a before the big bang? If so what? If not then what started it? Then although this is not physics there are the philosophers who will ask "Why" ? Why should such a thing take place? It is just the "why is there something rather than nothing?" question started at a different point. A singularity? What exactly is that? I know but the answer doesn't make sense. The big bang seems like just a guess really. A crazier one than many other theories thought of, that then, turn out to be true. And to the guy who thought about proving infinity with shorter and longer metre sticks. That seems to me just playful mathematics. It doesn't really address the "physical real" infinity meaning endlessness with no end and no end after that. I don't scoff or mean to suggest anyone dumb unintelligent or anything of that sort. I just think of all the theories I know of over time and have read about and have heard comment on, and I see that for all of it, man is no closer really to understanding his place. There are some other interesting TOEs that are more about the evolution of human conciousness and spiral nesting and psychology. read some Ken Wilber among others. They incorporate physics into some of the work but there interest is more internal about explaining what we are really wanting to know. "Who are we?" and "what should we do" "why are we here" their answers are very curious and surprisingly possible in its originality. just a point I wanted to put out there.

 

[Erck]

Having a belief in god or not... the question of how, when, why the universe is still a fairly valid question.

The who is answered of course, with a belief in god.

The singularity is a good question, belief in god or not.

Your point about the "internal" is important... very important.

And... I wonder how much we can find out about it, by better understanding the "external" world?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

In physics the qustion of the origin of the big bang is a simple as the cycles that we observe/see in all of nature, hence it's origin, in physics, is as 'simply answerable' as that...it began as the end of the last cycle, arose from the remnants of the last Big Crunch, that arose from the last big band, that arose from the last big crunch, that arose, begating, begating, begating, that kinda stuff...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well I don't think people are doing much with big crunches any more, since the acceleration of the expansion was discovered, but there is a cyclic model out of brane theory. In this model our universe arises from a brane that is periodically hit by another brane, parallel and close to it but "wiggling". Everytime there's a hit, the existing universe is wiped out and a new one started, or so I've heard.

 

[Erck]

It seems that when a theory starts to wear thin... things that are described as relatively solid, like points, bangs and crunches... turn into things that wiggle, like branes, strings, and wavicles.

Vacillation... the lubrication of decision-making.

 

[sol2]

It seems that when a theory starts to wear thin... things that are described as relatively solid, like points, bangs and crunches... turn into things that wiggle, like branes, strings, and wavicles.

But what is not undertsood is that to get to the brane idea you did not just throw GR out the window, and say Qm is not of any use. So the new perspective is defintiely built on the foundation.

Mr. Parsons comments are very simplistic indeed...until it is recognized, what cyclical really means? From that new foundational perspective, we might say its called paradigm building, and some do like these overused models of perception:):)

Vacillation... the lubrication of decision-making

Maybe we can call that, a topological feature of induction and deduction A universal kind of thing:)

 

[pepcin7]

yes, topological feature of induction- deduction? ?

I get your meaning; as mechanical, but fluid. But many of these terms we throw around are aestheically pleasing, but, theoretically there are many challenges to these ideas. Many of the versions of string theory and other extrapolations derived from the multiplying versions are just that. mental extrapolations. In this area, we must keep in mind that there is very little hard physical or energical data backing them up. They may fit the TOPOLOGICAL form for elegance and beauty. Beauty is a thing that mathematicians and physicists must admit are attractive in their models. I suppose much of it comes from a hidden (often unspoken) deep fascination that allows for mystery and it's seductive charm. For in reality what we are and where we are is REALLY a beautiful and overwhelmingly vast and literally ineffable WONDER! No one with an ounce of humanity can honestly say they have never simply looked at the night sky at least once in their life where they were not awestruck. It does happen. Yes even to physicists. Often then we are driven to find that final equation of ultimate, super penultimate, finality that sums it all up in one extraordinarily beautiful, simple equation. Who has not wondered? Which is more amazing E=MC 2sq or the thinking of it? How was it thought of? Do we yet know what it all means? Wonder is a great motivator of scientific research. I can't remember his name right off, but he addressed a convention of physicists (on quantum mechanics) and in his speech said that today we no longer ask the question ", is the hypothesis crazy, rather, we ask, is it crazy enough ?". JBS Haldane once remarked , "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose; it is queerer than we can suppose." The cyclical idea is another extrapolation on the big bang that has not been proven any more than a crunch. We have even invented dark matter to take the place of the apparent missing mass that should exist in order to keep the galaxies from flying apart based on the amount of required gravitation to keep them so held. No one has ever seen dark matter, or dark energy, or even has a clue what it might be like,, except for further theorization and,... extended further extrapolation. Maybe we just don't know something yet; Probably we don't. But without hypotheses, how and what would we test and measure? So the work goes on...more feverishly, no doubt, due to the latent amazment, that this work ,so far, has inspired.

 

[JesseBonin]

everyone wants so bad to "understand". here is a tid-bit. All cultures of early man had tales of how the world came to be. My favorite is a native american saying. "the sun seeing that is was alone, shed one tear, and that tear became the earth". or something like that. What the majority of these beliefs all have in coming is the existence of a "nothing" befor creation a "void".

 

[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...

Just to be certain that the emboldened is understood well enough, try to realize that when I stated "everywhere", I meant e-v-e-r-ywhere, as light looked at, as EMR, operating in the Universe, gives us EMR right down into the Core of a Neutron Star, permeating into the Stars very core, from the without (outside) of the star...that gives us EMR, EMR in areas of greater activity, then moreso, extreme activity, (and activity rates) while amidst the appearance of 'centers'...comes from the Bible actually, my sourced inspirational thought, "There is NO darkeness in Him..." and there is, in truth, no darkeness (absence of EMR) in the Universe, anywhere!