What Is Your Definition of "God"?

[Iacchus32]

God as "a fact" is dead. God as "an experience" is alive.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by N_Quire
Lifegazer, your style of introspection and the quirky results it provides are not what many of us would consider reason.

Why?

However preposterous, untestable and untenable your conclusions,

I don't mind criticism. I just don't like unsupported criticism.

you consider them to be the products of reason merely because you dreamt them up.

I reasoned them up. I wasn't asleep when I became aware of my ideas.

Introspection with little or no background and fieldwork in science and philosophy

That's a fact. I'm not a physicist nor an expert in philosophical-figures (and their thoughts) of the past. I have openly-admitted this to anybody who has ever asked.
But I consider reason to be the source of all knowledge. Not history. Reason precedes any historical experience. That's why I serve reason as opposed to history (knowledge). I just use knowledge (when/where I have it) for the creation of further reasoned-fact.

will never be anything more than armchair philosophising or bar-stool wisdom.

That's probably correct. But that's due to our class-structure, as much as anything else. Gimme a BSc. if you will - would my argument now become more credible?

It has been pointed out time and time again...

That's what the church said to Darwin.

The Mind and other such fluff does not advance our knowledge in any way.

Your mind seems beyond advancement. It's closed.

 

[N_Quire]

M.Gaspar, My comments cannot have been aimed at you because I haven't read a word you've written. I addressed Lifegazer. S/he and I are in the habit of exchanging friendly banter from time to time.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
'God' is a concept which is not borne of the imagination - but of reason. It's a deductive concept, existing in our minds, exactly like the concept of 'infinity', for example.
The concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent creator - as the possible essence of all existence - is borne of reason. Those who claim to not comprehend that concept are not failing to use their imaginations - they're failing to use their intelligence.

Using all reason I can possible find, I can just conclude that God fails to exist... An omnipotent creature that fails to exist, has fundamental deficits, if you ask me. There is not a time, and there is not a place, where God exists.

Instead of this, the world does not fail to exist, that is why I and my mind do exist also! The world never fails to exist, and is present everywhere!

I do not have to wonder about that, or ask for proof. Weather I reason about it or not, the world simply does not fail to exist, and has existence of it's own! The world has omnipresence (wherever and whenever one can be, or something can be, the world IS) and has omnipotence (whatever can exist, will become existent).

Now I call that something, whereas God does not fit into any reason about the world. It lacks any fundamental reason for it's existence, lacks any proof of existence, lacks existence in spatio-temporal way, and can't possible serve, even as a mind-concept, any usefull purpose for the existing world. Any statement considering God, or acts of God, in relation to the real existing world, is worthless, in that it can not possible lead to an increase in knowledge about the world as it is. The only way of increasing knowledge about the world is to research the world, investigate it, etc. There will never be a time that we will have all knowledge about the world, yet we will always be able to increase our knowledge about the world.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by heusdens
Now I call that something, whereas God does not fit into any reason about the world. It lacks any fundamental reason for it's existence, lacks any proof of existence, lacks existence in spatio-temporal way, and can't possible serve, even as a mind-concept, any usefull purpose for the existing world. Any statement considering God, or acts of God, in relation to the real existing world, is worthless, in that it can not possible lead to an increase in knowledge about the world as it is. The only way of increasing knowledge about the world is to research the world, investigate it, etc. There will never be a time that we will have all knowledge about the world, yet we will always be able to increase our knowledge about the world.

this claim depends on your defintion of god..what is your defintion of what god is or could be? when you have the ACCEPTED defintion of god according to everyone else you are then setting the bounds of what god can or cannot do...it is up to the individual to decide what the *concept of god* is...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Kerrie
this claim depends on your defintion of god..what is your defintion of what god is or could be? when you have the ACCEPTED defintion of god according to everyone else you are then setting the bounds of what god can or cannot do...it is up to the individual to decide what the *concept of god* is...

I was reacting to a definition of someone else (Lifegazer), and on basis of that definition was explaining what God in that context would or would not be, and how meaningfull such a concept could be.

I myself don't have a definition of God, cause I don't think it is a meaningfull concept, at least not in relation to explaining reality.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Does the Universe exist...?

Or do we have to PROVE that, too?

So if we can say that the UNIVERSE exists...and if we can define the Universe as "Everything That Is" (which would INCLUDE "GOD")

...or, better yet, if we wanted to view the Universe as a living, conscious Entity NOT created by an outisde force ("God") but, rather, an an "Eternal Entity of Energy" ITSELF...

...then, loosely speaking, we could call the Universe ITSELF "God"

...hence "proving" the "existence of God" since the existence of the Universe ITSELF is a "given".

Anyone interested in entertaining the thought that the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts?

 

[Kerrie]

i somewhat agree with you M Gaspar, but i would go further to say that the *ability* for life to exist, think, learn, grow, love, feel, fight, intuit, understand, etc is the essence of *god*...without these abilities, there would be nothing...

 

[M. Gaspar]

Kerrie...

All the "abilities" (as you call them) to think, learn, grow, love, feel, intuit, understand...might all be natural functions of the living Entity that is the Universe.

Are these the "essense" of the Universe...or just part of the package? I don't know. However, I cannot agree that without these particular -- or similar -- functions, "there would be nothing."

I can envision a Universe WITHOUT consciousness or emotion (etc.)...and It could still EXIST...but it would be a LESSER Universe without them.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I can envision a Universe WITHOUT consciousness or emotion (etc.)...and It could still EXIST...but it would be a LESSER Universe without them. [/B]

i think the will of the universe is to express these abilities, without them, the universe would simply cease to exist...i think these abilities are necessary-in even the smallest form-to happen...

 

[M. Gaspar]

Kerrie...

I don't think It would "cease to exist".

I just think It would be VERY BORED.

In fact, It wouldn't even be THAT because it would be MINDLESS.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Tom
*Mustering up best Russian accent*

Kerry, god(s), Santa Clauses, Zeuses, Ras do not exist, by definition. Whole nature (=math) would be mess with god (heizenberg uncertainty, Shred equation, etc).

What you mean 'being'? It is 99.99999% certain that no beings exist outside Earth.

Impossible.

Force is F=dp/dt. Does that spell "god"?

Nature already got name (=universe). Science too (=math). Why you need another one?

Thank you.

Very funny stuff here. I've been missing out having not looked inside this thread until tonight.

Remember; More knowledge = Fewer Santa Clauses.

 

[pelastration]

God is often referred as behind the VOID.
Now the void itself can be seen as an unbreakable membrane.
That membrane can be folded by a special universal manifold in such as way that the membrane is still in EVERY subdivision.

It seems a paradox but I show this very simple manifold on my website: http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology. (16 pages)

Once you understand it you will know that we are all tuned ... and that we are linked to the original force (the VOID is in you!).

 

[pelastration]

No problem ... avoid me ... ;-)
It's significant because your signature is " You are what you DO".

My suggestion: Do something! LOL

 

[M. Gaspar]

And some, who shall remain nameless,

...may be "tuned" a bit "too tight."

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by STAii
Zero, existence cannot be explained without the existence of (a) 'God'.

Then let us state there was no God. Your conclusion would then be, there is no world either. But then...what does exist then? A mere nothingness can not be said to exist (existence must be, cause inexistence cannot be). Ergo... there must always be something that has existence, and existence itself (the totallity of everything there is) has no beginning in time (only particular forms of existence). It is that what we call the universe.

 

[heusdens]

What would God be defined like?

Some questions:

1. Does God exist in time and space?

2. If so, is God finite in size, or infinite?

3. Is God able of changing?

4. If the universe had always existed and is infinite in size/extend, where would that place God?

5. Is God inside or outside of the universe (the whole of totality)

6. If it is assumed that time had a definite beginning, then what happened before that time?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Everything That Is...

Perhaps it is our species' infantile addiction to "story" that keeps so many of us stuck in "the one about the Great Outsider who 'created' Everything That Is."

You CAN eliminate this personified "God" from the equation and "simply" see the Universe ITSELF as an "eternal and evolving Entity of Energy" ...a living, conscious Being unto Itself.

A Being that is connected - and responsive - to all of Its part.

I do NOT think that this being is "all powerful" or "all knowing": It must "live" according to the natural functions of Its own "body"; and It doesn't know everything that's going to happen.

It is a Creature of infinite POTENTIALITIES". It has NO PLAN -- only INTENTION -- which acts upon the inherent function of randomness that is part of Its system.

This Being -- being "eternal" -- was not "created by" ANYTHING! It gives "birth" to Itself via endless cycles of RE-creation.

Instead of "worshipping" a "Great Outsider", I prefer to APPRECIATE Everything That Is...while contributing to Its self-understanding and evolution.

 

[amp]

Kerrie,

'God' can be described as a being in the absolute sense of the word. Contrary to what Zero said it is everywhere at once exclude nowhere at once because its everywhere. The article about the multiverse in Sciam is interesting in the idea it proposes of infinite space with a large number(~infinite)of universes. I think of this infinite space as being an attribute of 'God'(everywhere at once)[I wonder if dark matter fills this entire infinite space] Dark matter is invisible.{could it be spirit?}BTW, Kerrie and Tom, speaking of Alexander - he could be vindicated by the article in what Ted says about the level IV multiverse . So I'll be the first, Alex you may be right Math structures could determune the universe, sorry .

 

[M. Gaspar]

Heusdens...

Let me rephrase your questions:

Does the UNIVERSE exist in time and space?

Is the UNIVERSE finite in size, or infinite?

Is the UNIVERSE capable of changing?

If the UNIVERSE always existed and is infinite insize, where would one place the UNIVERSE.

Is the UNIVERSE inside or outside of the UNIVERSE?

What happened before the UNIVERSE "began"?

You see, you can eliminate the "Great Outsider" many call "God" and simply see the Universe as a rather complex Entity...an "eternal entity of energy" that rebirths Itself, over and over again. That's what makes it ETERNAL.

So, let me repeat: Perhaps it's our infantile attachment to stories that keeps us stuck on "the one about the Great Outsider who created the Universe."

 

[amp]

Heusdens, using my post as guide then,

1. Does God exist in time and space?

Short answer yes and no, God is thruout time and space and beyond.

2. If so, is God finite in size, or infinite?

See above, size seems inapplicable- 'God' is from < than Planck length to beyond the extent of space.Everywhere in between.

3. Is God able of changing?

No, if that were possible the answers to 1& 2 above would not be true.

4. If the universe had always existed and is infinite in size/extend, where would that place God?

If that where so then they would be one.

5. Is God inside or outside of the universe (the whole of totality)

As the whole of totality 'God' is both. Another way to see it is the universe is inside 'God'.

6. If it is assumed that time had a definite beginning, then what happened before that time?

There was only 'God'.

O'tay.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Amp...

Do you honestly believe your response to Heusden's questions...especially #3...that "God" is not capable of changing?

Even if the standard "personified God" were true, can you think of anything more BORING to an "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" "God" to STAY THE SAME FOREVER AND EVER, AMEN?

The Universe, in my opinion, is not "within God"...the Universe IS "God"...only better.

 

[amp]

I respect your concept M.G without deriding,

my conception(well I didn't originate it) may be at odds with generally accepted beleif systems, for instance I believe 'God' doesn't change but isn't static in the way you use the word. My comprehension is 'God' cannot cease to be 'God', circular to be sure but one does get the point. Thats why when I say something like 'God' is beyond our concepts of infinite it gets derided but I emphasize the thought by saying 'God' can produce an infinite amount of energy or matter or both and be undiminished.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by amp
my conception(well I didn't originate it) may be at odds with generally accepted beleif systems, for instance I believe 'God' doesn't change but isn't static in the way you use the word. My comprehension is 'God' cannot cease to be 'God', circular to be sure but one does get the point. Thats why when I say something like 'God' is beyond our concepts of infinite it gets derided but I emphasize the thought by saying 'God' can produce an infinite amount of energy or matter or both and be undiminished.

OK.

 

[Alexander]

Basicly, god is anything you want because god only exist in your head (= has no equivalent in nature).

Thus, any definition of god is equally acceptable (as long as it does not contradict facts).

 

[pelastration]

paradox of Trinity

Most of the threads on these forums are about the same question: the degree (or density) of existence (reality, consciousness, nothingness, God, paradoxes, truth,...), it's interrelationship(s). When you see the discussions from a distance you will see that we are trapped in semantic frames with paradoxical implications.

When we just use words we will not come out.

THE NEED FOR OVERVIEW

The fundamental question is: can we imagine a kinetic mechanism that shows how a basic 'something' can create mass, energy, interactions, connectivity and still be valid on all degree of density, and explain also paradoxes like Trinity, QM, Einstein's shift between matter and energy, the coupling constant, quantum leap, etc.
When we have such a mechanism then everyone can call that after his own believe system: GOD, Maya, nothingness, Logos, Jamjam, ...

Starting from pure logic - based on only one postulate (there is one unbreakable membrane) - such an mechanism can be imagined. This unbreakable membrane can manifold itself creating that way new layers which will separate (make isolated islands) but still will stay connected too to previous islands, and are still connected to the original starting 'something'. This means that the 'form' which contains 'essential movement' creates diversity.

DUALISM

This universal manifold (probably described by alpha: coupling constant) will create already on the second level the separation between basic ENERGY (3+) and basic MATTER (3-), which are in fact differently layered. From there the combinations are higher than traditional squared or factored.

The human enigma is that he can only 'observer' from the downside up: from the Eyes of the Monkey. For the monkey his surrounding is fixed and given, An Sich. For the monkey each observer unit is an fully isolated unity! (ps. don't be offended by the use of the monkey, it is just a symbol).
But not from the topside: The Eye of Ra. From the view of Ra all (everything) is just restructured membrane.

This dualism between Energy and Matter is the paradox created in our human understand (monkey view) and brings us to discussions like on these forums and opposite views like Materialism and Idealism. The various explanations of the paradoxical Origin brought humanity : religious fanatics, Inquisition(s), wars and (auto) believes in superior races ('chosen' by GOD). So it's time to de-mystify!

From the monkey view we see 'islands of reality'.
We live on such an island. (this is my Universe).
Our body is such an island. (this is my Island).
But from the Eye of Ra we will say: an island is just an PART of the Earth surface (that is higher than the other surrounding Earth surface) that is surrounded by water. And we can see that all islands are connected by Earth but on another level separated by water.

LIFE.

The further this process of division (by adding new layers) goes the more complexity starts and conditions for 'life' appear on their level(s). Level dependent self-organizing will create collective and individual consciousness on several relevant levels.

This means also that spiritual energies (as emanations/infolding) of the basic energy (3+) has degrees of (relative) independence, which explain the possibilities in connectivity in consciousness systems.

Humans are thus each an individual universe with billions of combinations of internal isolated islands (fundamental particles which are 'boxed' in atoms, atoms which are 'boxed' in molecules, molecules which are 'boxed' in DNA, ... finally creating Jim, Alan, Mary, ...; but on down-levels they still are connected on common (collective) starting islands.
Inside they are still connected with the original movement, and internally there is still the original membrane between each layer.

The paradox of life (the connection of a physical body with spiritual body) can be analyzed and solved in the same way. The connection (starting life) happens with tiny white holes and de-connection (death) with tiny black holes.

MEMBRANE is GRAVITATION.

Trapped inside the human monkey view is the idea of gravitation. What we call gravity (fundamental connectivity) is only the result of the infolded membrane in every fundamental particle, subsequential atom, subsequential molecule, ...

The question of GOD is thus the ability to see with the Eye of Ra. ;-)

If you want to see a solution on the paradox of Trinity click on below image.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration


The fundamental question is: can we imagine a kinetic mechanism that shows how a basic 'something' can create mass, energy, interactions, connectivity and still be valid on all degree of density, and explain also paradoxes like Trinity, QM, Einstein's shift between matter and energy, the coupling constant, quantum leap, etc.

That is almost exactly what scientists do for living. But instead of imagination they use math (=logic) to compare proposed "mechanisms" with what we see and discard those which do not pass.

The human enigma is that he can only 'observer' from the downside up: from the Eyes of the Monkey. For the monkey his surrounding is fixed and given, An Sich. For the monkey each observer unit is an fully isolated unity! (ps. don't be offended by the use of the monkey, it is just a symbol).
But not from the topside: The Eye of Ra. From the view of Ra all (everything) is just restructured membrane.

Science does not use senses in investigating nature. Senses are useless for this purpose. Indeed, to someone a mountainn seems tall, but to someone else it seems small. So nstead, science uses independent on human senses tools: a kilogram, a meter stick, a balance, a stopwatch, a spectrometer, a thermometer, etc. Then mountain is same 1.5 km +/- 0.2 km for everyone: dino, alien, robot, etc.

This dualism between Energy and Matter is the paradox created in our human understand (monkey view) and brings us to discussions like on these forums and opposite views like Materialism and Idealism.

If by matter you mean fermions and by energy - bosons, then there is not much mathematical difference between them - they are both one and same object with slightly different parameters.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
But instead of imagination they use math (=logic) to compare proposed "mechanisms" with what we see and discard those which do not pass.

Alexander check my thread on the maths forum (posted April 15 - 44 views - no reply).
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=14203

Can you do the maths?
I don't believe you can

 

[Alexander]

Oh, you did not do any math yet? Then you don't have a THEORY yet.


Why then you claim that your manifolds (which by the way topologically are just spheres) have anything to do with reality?

 

[Cartesio]

In my view, religion was a way through which early man attempted to explain what he saw in the universe. His mental capabilities were very limited, the universe was so overwhelming that he attributed its existence to a supernatural being. He was not capable of explaining the universe through the scientific laws that govern it.
I have only been exposed to one religion i.e. Christianity. I think I read this on a post in PF2 - 'the paradox of an omniscient God allowing free will.' If s/he/it knows everything, why bother creating everything in the first place? Sounds like a crazy scientist carrying out a sadistic experiment, right?
How about if everything we have been taught/ have heard is wrong?( à la Albert Einstein - maybe religion needs a complete overhaul as well). For all we know, the bible was written by human beings who are extremely fallible.
Has anyone heard of Neale Donald Walsch?

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander [/i]
Oh, you did not do any math yet? Then you don't have a THEORY yet.
Why then you claim that your manifolds (which by the way topologically are just spheres) have anything to do with reality?

Pathetic. [zz)]
Simplicity has merits and makes life easy.

Michio Kaku: "Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math is nothing but bookkeeping. "

Source: http://www.mkaku.org/articles/becoming-a-physicist.shtml

That's what Einstein said ... but Alexander knows better.

Is mathematics everything? So if you believe that: God is mathematics just tell us that. We will respect that vision.

If you believe my manifold is not based on logic (including numbers) you should check my website ... .

And answer to my answer in the thread: Everything came from Nothing.- Speed of gravity.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Cartesio
In my view, religion was a way through which early man attempted to explain what he saw in the universe. His mental capabilities were very limited, the universe was so overwhelming that he attributed its existence to a supernatural being. He was not capable of explaining the universe through the scientific laws that govern it.
I have only been exposed to one religion i.e. Christianity. I think I read this on a post in PF2 - 'the paradox of an omniscient God allowing free will.' If s/he/it knows everything, why bother creating everything in the first place? Sounds like a crazy scientist carrying out a sadistic experiment, right?
How about if everything we have been taught/ have heard is wrong?( à la Albert Einstein - maybe religion needs a complete overhaul as well). For all we know, the bible was written by human beings who are extremely fallible.
Has anyone heard of Neale Donald Walsch?

For sure humans want to "explain". This is called in psychology: a rationalization. Thus find with limited rational elements an explanation for an event. We do that every day.

On that paradox: this reasoning show that humans like to see "God" reasoning as humans.

 

[Alexander]

Pel, don't take it as offence, but you did not answer the key question: what is the relation between your hypothesis and physical world you claim it explains?

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
Pel, don't take it as offence, but you did not answer the key question: what is the relation between your hypothesis and physical world you claim it explains?

Pelastration concept shows how mass and thus matter is created (just by two parameters: motion and form. Thus pure kinetics.).
By restructering of the membrane all fundamental particles are created + they include already gravity (= the membrane).
Fundamental particles = the basis of the physical world.

This happens by adding layers (by a manifold that restructures the previous levels).

Adding a layer = extra dimension.

The creation: a new white hole (combination of two different hyperspaces) -> joint in new unity = pressure between those layers + friction between layers = internal motion.

Decay: black hole + dejoint back into two separate hyperspaces again .

Second law of thermodynamics is valid in complete system. There is only one system with billions of subdivisions. Each sub-division keeps his 'historical " layer structure. (some call that a HOLON).

 

[Alexander]

But these are only words, right? There is nothing to back them.

Say, none of kniown particles are derived and none of properties of any known force is explained, right?

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
But these are only words, right? There is nothing to back them.

I draw a plan. It's a pure logic.
I just need some numbers. They will prove it is a valid approach. The logic shows it.
The numbers will come soon. It's not because they are not here now that it makes the approach not valid. If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths. I know the result.

Originally posted by Alexander
Say, none of kniown particles are derived and none of properties of any known force is explained, right? [/B]

Gravity is explained. Quantum leap. Design of white/black hole.
To apply on specific particles the combinations will be extracted from the experimental data from CERN, FermiLab, etc. I am not capable to do that. If I would be able to that ... I have other priorities.

Don't know if you even checked my full website, but since you like maths check the webpage where I analyzed some basic numbers. It shows that by pelastration there are two 3's, five 4's and fourtheen 5's, each with another layering. Just count them (the basic math's!). That's basic logic. And Alexander this is not just theory, as an inventor I have already real applications under patent-applications for this approach. And I designed and applied for patent already new toys based on the manifold. So I apply it in the REALITY.
http://hollywood.org/cosmology/numbers.html

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
I would define God as a creator of the universe, as that seems to be a very commong trend. Did Zues create the universe? Or his dad or whatever? Can't remember. I would call other godlike entities, supernatural beings. I believe in none of them.

This somehow states that all of the material world received it's existence due to the existence (acts) of a God.

This would imply that if God would not be existent or dit not create the material world, then there would not be a material world.

What would exist then?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
This somehow states that all of the material world received it's existence due to the existence (acts) of a God.

This would imply that if God would not be existent or dit not create the material world, then there would not be a material world.

What would exist then?

What would exist if there were no "God"? ...the living, conscious Entity that is the Universe.

If this Entity is truly "eternal" ...then there is no need for a "creator".

Otherwise, why not ask the question: Who created God?

Shouldn't extraneous factors be reduced OUT of any equation?

 

[Royce]

God is.


Are you?

If yoiu prove your existence; you have proved God's existence. Look in the mirror you will see his handiwork.
Shut down you mouth and mind and you will hear him talking to you. Most of us are shouting "I am" so loadly that we can't here God saying "I am."


PS
Don't blame me. It's all wuliherons fault. He turned me back onto Tao.

 

[BoulderHead]

Some say that you must listen carefully to hear the word of God. It's unfortunate that theists can't hear the word of atheism over the voices in their heads.
-Michael Pain

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration

Gravity is explained. Quantum leap. Design of white/black hole.

Ok. How F=GMm/R² (gravity force), or Shroedinger equation (quantum leap), or Einstein one (black/white hole) follow from your hypothesis?

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
Ok. How F=GMm/R² (gravity force), or Shroedinger equation (quantum leap), or Einstein one (black/white hole) follow from your hypothesis?

I draw the plan. It's a pure logic.
I just need some numbers. They will prove it is a valid approach. The logic shows it.
The numbers will come soon. It's not because they are not here now that it makes the approach not valid. If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths. I know the result.

For your information:

Quote : In 1912, Einstein had another profound insight: If all accelerated frames of reference were equivalent then Euclidean geometry cannot hold in all of them. That is, the geometry of space is not necessarily Euclidean.
Einstein did not know the mathematics he needed to turn his idea into a physical theory so he turned to his friend Marcel Grossmann who directed Einstein to the works of Riemann, Ricci and Levi-Civita on differential geometry.
... In 1915, Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which provided a radical explanation of free fall motion and therefore of gravity. The free fall motion of objects depends on the geometry of the space through which they move. Objects in free fall move the same way simply because they experience the same spatial geometry Moreover, the geometry of space and time is determined by matter and energy.

If you really go inside the P-manifold approach you will see that the non-commonsense behavior of light in a inertia frame is not strange at all. Since the membrane is inside the inertia frame ... the same membrane stress is applicable. So light has it's standard speed in the inertia frame.

I repeat: If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths.

 

[Royce]

That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith. [/B][/QUOTE]

It is only "Blind Faith" to those who refuse to see or to look.
It is reasonable to reason that we and the universe had a beginning and that something/someone began it. It is reasonable to reason the the immaterial exists and I have yet to experience a material idea, thought, theory or consciouness. It is reasonable to reason that I exist but not reasonable for me to reason that you exist. I can only take it on Blind faith that the irritant that is supplies foriegn thoughts is real, material and not just an unpleasant aspect of my dream.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith.

It is only "Blind Faith" to those who refuse to see or to look.
It is reasonable to reason that we and the universe had a beginning and that something/someone began it. It is reasonable to reason the the immaterial exists and I have yet to experience a material idea, thought, theory or consciouness. It is reasonable to reason that I exist but not reasonable for me to reason that you exist. I can only take it on Blind faith that the irritant that is supplies foriegn thoughts is real, material and not just an unpleasant aspect of my dream. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gibberish.

 

[THE MIND]

Hello !

Hello! Hiiiii.

I am THE MIND.
Nice to be here.

 

[quantumdude]

LOL I guess that settles it, then. That's always what I thought you'd look like!

 

[FZ+]

"Proof for the existence of God", the revenge?

 

[BoulderHead]

When I saw THE MIND become our most recent member I knew things would get interesting rather quickly!

Great big hugs and kisses for THE MIND.

[edit]
Say, I only just saw your avatar. I must say, it appears your MIND could only be surpassed by your beauty!
I have not seen such a combination of brains and beauty since I fell for Hedy Lamar!

 

[M. Gaspar]

No "Buddy" Here!

Originally posted by BoulderHead
When I saw THE MIND become our most recent member I knew things would get interesting rather quickly!

Great big hugs and kisses for THE MIND.

[edit]
Say, I only just saw your avatar. I must say, it appears your MIND could only be surpassed by your beauty!
I have not seen such a combination of brains and beauty since I fell for Hedy Lamar!

So you'll know, not everybody feels this way.

I had enough VACANT CHAT on Yahoo's Physics Chat room!

Guess that's why they have "Ignore" buttons.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Ok, here it goes. I would define God as such:

Any one of a variety mythological entities which have supreme power and abilities over all other entities in it's respective mythology.

This I have come to consider the best definition, give or take.

Here we can see this applies to christian mythology where God would have power over all other entities, including humans because in the Christian mythology, humans exist.

I could create a mythology where there only exists two snails, Phil and Ralph. Ralph has supreme power and abilities over all entities (Phil). Therefore he is the god.

Make sense?