God is our basis of our existence, but is not visible. Compare it to a tree. The basis are the roots, but they are also not visible. How can you understand the workings of a tree if you can't study the basics. That's the same with man. If you don't believe that humanity has invisible roots (god), then you don't grasp the basics and you can never understand humanity properly. — Vincent

That's it! Though I think all life and the universe is just a reflection of life in heaven.

You could have 'massaged my doubt a little longer but you use the same 'errors in English' all the tim — universeness

It was my English? Damned!

or be learned, a lesson — Hillary

:rofl: Good luck with that! You can however keep helping me with the holes in my physics/cosmology :smile:

You can however keep helping me with the holes in my physics/cosmology — universeness

What hole of yours you want me to fill, your bla...no, too much! :lol:

What hole of yours you want me to fill, your bla...no, too much! — Hillary

More progress!! Well done! you can exert control and not fall into that black hole.
Told you I was a poet and don't even know it!
Perhaps this time, 'that's not my name!!' will keep his name longer!

Oh well, brother Uni, life is a long ride on the back of them crazy horses. Who knows where they lead us. We can always jump off and lay our weary heads at rest for a while and just bite a straw. I think I have seen most on this forum by now on which just a handful of people offer there musings without actually listening to each other (you, btw. making an exception, which I truly mean, eventhough you're an atheist...). It gets time to do other things. The thing is, it's kind of addicting and I'm kinda perceptive to that.

If space and particles are not eternal, that is, not infinite then God is logical explanation — SpaceDweller

You are indulging in that boring old 'special pleading.' Why is your god label 'logical?'
Do you honestly think that the 'god does not need an origin,' special plead, is ever going to be accepted by atheists? or rational thinkers or those of us that just won't accept any woo woo, undemonstrated supernatural claims. The infinite regression issue is not satisfied by the god posit and NEVER will be.
Why is the god posit a more acceptable first cause or prime mover than 'a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence?'

erhaps this time, 'that's not my name!!' will keep his name longer! — universeness

You think that bla... could be a reason for a ban?

Do you honestly think that the 'god does not need an origin,' special plead, is ever going to be accepted by atheists? — universeness

In defense of SpaceDweller, the gods don't need explanation as eternal intelligence is selfsufficient. Eternal stupid particles need an explanation though.

Oh well, brother Uni, life is a long ride on the back of them crazy horses. Who knows where they lead us. We can always jump off and lay our weary heads at rest for a while and just bite a straw. I think I have seen most on this forum by now on which just a handful of people offer there musings without actually listening to each other (you, btw. making an exception, which I truly mean, eventhough you're an atheist...). It gets time to do other things. The thing is, it's kind of addicting and I'm kinda perceptive to that. — Hillary

Well, some addictions are good for you, such as addiction to life, to communicating with others, to helping others, addiction to love, addiction to wonderment, addiction to truth seeking. I am just trying to convince YOU PERSONALLY that your addiction to science is far more worthwhile and useful than your dalliances with polytheism. It's time you forgave the current cosmology community for not giving your ToE more of an airing. Learn to love them again and stop wasting your affection on that which has no existence!
What about these two offerings:



and:

You think that bla... could be a reason for a ban? — Hillary

My advice would be. If you are about to type something which the moderators are probably going to judge inappropriate then dont! Go to the shoutbox! That's what it was made for within extremity guidelines.

Yes that is true. But I thought you were also worth atheist. You said that right? — Vincent

Yes, I said that. But it was part of a play I performed to join the atheist belief and make them admit their own defeat. I started rather pompously, and @universeness sensed my play very well. I continued though and almost succeeded, hadn't I revealed the play too early. I couldn't resist when he said that "we surely had many exchanges before", which he said because that wasn't yet the case. And indeed, we have had many many discussions here before.. So I answered, "I think so too!", which settled the score. But I wonder where we would be if I hadn't revealed. I almost got him over! But the clown in me got the upper hand. Again...

I was thinking about the same song and actually hoped you posted it! No kidding!

Well, some addictions are good for you, such as addiction to life, to communicating with others, to helping others, addiction to love, addiction to wonderment, addiction to truth seeking. I am just trying to convince YOU PERSONALLY that your addiction to science is far more worthwhile and useful than your dalliances with polytheism. It's time you forgave the current cosmology community for not giving your ToE more of an airing. Learn to love them again and stop wasting your affection on that which has no existence! — universeness

You are a poet!

Yes, I said that. But it was part of a play I performed to join the atheist belief and make them admit their own defeat. I started rather pompously, and universeness sensed my play very well. I continued though and almost succeeded, hadn't I revealed the play too early. I couldn't resist when he said that "we surely had many exchanges before", which he said because that wasn't yet the case. And indeed, we have had many many discussions here before.. So I answered, "I think so too!", which settled the score. But I wonder where we would be if I hadn't revealed. I almost got him over! But the clown in me got the upper hand. Again.. — Hillary

LOL. But from the start he said he thought you were a troll.
I didn't get it either. But you shouldn't bully people like that. You say yourself that he is a good person with a heart for people and nature. I don't think you should lie like that.
Rather than working against each other, wouldn't it be better to figure out each other's truths and then come up with a new idea together. We are all going through a very difficult time and if we keep working against each other like this, there will be no solution.
God is not true until science proves otherwise. I believe in its existence, but can't prove it either.

You are a poet! — Hillary

Does it manifest in such a way that you would consider what I am saying to you?

I was thinking about the same song and actually hoped you posted it! No kidding! — Hillary

I believe you. I am not suspicious of everything you say, especially in regards to your extensive physics and cosmology knowledge.

Thanks for your defense of me and I don't wish to dilute it but I am not easily bullied by anyone.
Your sentiments and recommendations towards better communication and honesty between people are spot on in my opinion. We can all benefit more from such an approach. I wonder how well those people who called you an idiot really know you. But the question must also be asked, how much effort did you make, to help them understand you better?

I wonder how well those people who called you an idiot really know you. — universeness

No one really knows me and I've never met anyone who makes the effort to understand me. I also think I've always been with the wrong kind of people.

how much effort did you make, to help them understand you better? — universeness

That's a tough one. I'm 32 now and I still don't understand myself. I've already put a lot of effort into it, but I like to change my mind, which causes a lot of chaos in my head. And changing your mind often comes across as an idiot. I'm not a good speaker either. Typing it works better.

I have made progression with the ToE though. I have found, I think, a way to mathematically describe the particle geometric structure. Consider a 6d space. Now, we need a 6 dimensional metric (6x6 matrix, without time yet). The first block describes the bulk, the second block the 3 curled up dimensions. Now, the bulk 3d vacuum is filled with virtual particles fluctuating (rotating) and the real particles are actually virtual particles with precise momenta and positions and existence in time, and they interact by coupling to these virtual ones, breaking them open (the single virtual particle is actually a circle in a spacetime Feynman diagram). The virtual particles can get accelerated away from each other in a background bulk that is one dimension higher, if this 4d space is hyperbolical or saddle like, as negative curvature represents repulsive gravity. How do we contain the particles in a 3d space and how can a vacuum be hyperbolical? Well you can say that the virtual particles cause a negative curvature. Virtual gravitons coupled to real mass cause positive curvature of spacetime. Virtual gravitons are part of empty space too. But with real mass they cause positive curvature and when no real mass is present yet, as before the big bang, the default curvature is that of the internal of a torus, which has negative curvature on the inside. So the virtual particles, confined to 3d around the hole of the 4d torus, can accelerate away from each other on the inside part of the torus (we only need the inside part of the torus and extend the negative curvature to infinity). How do gravitons curve space(time) though? The difference between the three basic particles is a different one than the gravitational interaction. The gravitational interaction in general relativity is described by curvature of spacetime, while the quantum field picture is a particle interaction. If gravity is mediated by particles, then how the curvature arises? Einstein described gravity by spacetime curvature but how mass/energy curve space is not explained. If we put two masses in empty space, they couple to the virtual graviton field, but how does this curve space (and time automatically)? The space between two electrically charged particles gets not curved when the couple to the virtual photon field. Of course gravitons are tensor particles, but why, if they couple to mass, should that induce space curvature? I asked on physics forums but got no answer, only comments of being an improper question or deletion of the question (and bannings for asking to much, so it seemed). I have my ideas about it and you're right. Why bother about them gods? BTW, prof. Harari answered me politely, but I think he's an exception to the rule. Most of them hotshots think they live high above. But maybe for a dollar I might contact Carroll. But it's the very idea that you have to pay to ask. Im curious though for his answer.

And changing your mind often comes across as an idiot. — Vincent

Why? I mocked them theists too, and still do. But they exist (gods) and without them what meaning would have life?

I don't mean you're an idiot. Quite the contrary.
I don't like most theists either, but that doesn't mean I deny the existence of god. God is not an old man on a cloud or anything. God is something that connects us all in one way or another.

I believe you. I am not suspicious of everything you say, especially in regards to your extensive physics and cosmology knowledge. — universeness

Can't we make a site for alternative theories of physics? But with respect for the actual theories already in use?

don't mean you're an idiot. Quite the contrary.
I don't like most theists either, but that doesn't mean I deny the existence of god. God is not an old man on a cloud or anything. God is something that connects us all in one way or another. — Vincent

:up:

Wise words my friend! I made a short story about the gods. I think every creature or organism, yes the whole universe, have an eternal counterpart in heaven, and it was that eternity that was involved in their decision to recreate heaven.

No one really knows me and I've never met anyone who makes the effort to understand me. I also think I've always been with the wrong kind of people — Vincent

Once you have knowledge of what the blockages are and what's causing them, you can start to tackle the problem. Perhaps that's why you started to exchange your views more on sites like this one.

That's a tough one. I'm 32 now and I still don't understand myself. I've already put a lot of effort into it, but I like to change my mind, which causes a lot of chaos in my head. And changing your mind often comes across as an idiot. I'm not a good speaker either. Typing it works better — Vincent

I'm 57 now and I still don't fully understand myself, I don't expect I ever will and I am glad of that.
If I had no more questions then what would my purpose be?
Life is a bitch and then you die but I f****** love that bitch and death is the harbinger of change.
I am unafraid of oblivion. It's a far far better sleep I go to than I have ever known!
But meantime life! Being alive! living! Yeah, I think we need to celebrate the wonder of that more and we don't need the permission or sanction from non-existent gods to do so.
Do you ever compare your 32 years with the proposed 13.8 billion since the big bang?
So far, you and I are tiny wee blips in the cosmic calender scale YET we may well be the ONLY assigners of ANY SIGNIFICANT MEANING to the Universe. Without us blips the Universe may have NO MEANING or at least its meaning may be very much reduced. An arrogant viewpoint I admit, especially when I am a proponent of Carl Sagan's great demotions and I consider myself humble but our significance to the Universe may be quite, quite true nontheless.

Do you ever compare your 32 years with the proposed 13.8 billion since the big bang?
So far, you and I are tiny wee blips in the cosmic calender scale — universeness

I do that almost constantly. If you know that, then thinking you know a lot is the dumbest thing there is. Our entire society has only been around for 7,000 years or so. If you compare that to those 13 billion years. LOL. People really think we've accomplished something. That we have already discovered everything. We don't know anything yet.

But I've been gone for a few hours now. Still gotta do stuff. See you later

Consider a 6d space. — Hillary

Why 6D in particular as opposed to the 10D of string theory?

The first block describes the bulk, the second block the 3 curled up dimensions. — Hillary

Why 3 curled up or why 3 dimensions of the very small? just as a mirror to the 3 macro dimensions?

the bulk 3d vacuum is filled with virtual particles — Hillary

I have a serious problem at this point! how can that which is 'virtual' 'fill' anything.
Virtual particles are mathematical only. There is no empirical evidence that they exist IN REALITY.

and the real particles are actually virtual particles with precise momenta and positions and existence in time — Hillary

You are making big leaps here! Based on what? A 'virtual' particle cannot be conflated with a 'real particle,' by just 'assiging' it momentum and position. Both of which are mainly probability-based and are field perturbations and also observer relative.

You would need to get me past these points before I could try to understand the rest of your posting

Now we're talking! Im in the park right now but will surely reply when back home. There's some pretty serious barking going on! :up:

But maybe for a dollar I might contact Carroll. But it's the very idea that you have to pay to ask. Im curious though for his answer. — Hillary

I agree, definitely worth the pennies involved but be warned, if you pay, it does not guarantee an answer from him. In one of his podcasts, Sean said he 'chooses' which ones he thinks are 'worth,' an answer.

Can't we make a site for alternative theories of physics? But with respect for the actual theories already in use? — Hillary

So why don't you?