Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God Proven to Exist Per Mainstream Physics

JamesRedford
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 1:54:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see my below article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause.

For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

This article further provides an examination of the globalist political power-elite: history is given on their organizational structure and their methods of accumulating power; and analysis is given on where they're attempting to take the world, i.e., their self-termed New World Order world government and world religion.

The article furnishes documentation on what the globalist oligarchy's ultimate goal is. This ultimate goal of theirs most popularly goes by the name of transhumanism: immortality through technology. However, I explain in the article that the coming radical life-extension technologies create a fundamental dilemma for the oligarchs, which is why they must dominate world society before such technology becomes a reality. The details of that dilemma are explained in Sec. 8.2.2: "The Mark of the Beast" of the article.

Thus, this article explains to people what is to occur and why it is to occur, so that they will not be in ignorance as to the events that are to unfold.

Below one can download the article for free. I encourage everyone to generously share this article with others. By all means, please save it to your hard-drive and give others copies of it. Also, feel free to share the text of this post. The article is in PDF format.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com... , http://archive.org... , http://theophysics.host56.com... , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com... , http://sites.google.com...

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. (Said papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68. http://webcitation.org... , http://cloudxeon.com... )

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which Prof. Tipler's August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon, in which Prof. Tipler's June 1989 paper was published, is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website. http://webcitation.org... , http://archive.is... )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see my above-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist. http://theophysics.host56.com... , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com... , http://theophysics.freevar.com...

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

####################

In the below link are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com... , http://archive.is... , http://webcitation.org...
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com... , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com...

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything [TOE]) http://theophysics.ifastnet.com... , http://theophysics.host56.com...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 6:12:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's amusing to see idiots talk about physics. Its unique to any other scientific discipline because no matter how stupid your ideas are, you can always make them appear so groundbreaking, unique, and prodigious with a lot of veneered words.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JamesRedford
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 6:23:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 6:12:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's amusing to see idiots talk about physics. Its unique to any other scientific discipline because no matter how stupid your ideas are, you can always make them appear so groundbreaking, unique, and prodigious with a lot of veneered words.

Hi, Lordknukle.

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. (Said papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archiveFrank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD56e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68. http://webcitation.org... , http://cloudxeon.com... )

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which Prof. Tipler's August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon, in which Prof. Tipler's June 1989 paper was published, is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website. http://webcitation.org... , http://archive.is... )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com... , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com...

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything [TOE]) http://theophysics.ifastnet.com... , http://theophysics.host56.com...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 6:30:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 6:23:59 PM, JamesRedford wrote:
At 8/20/2013 6:12:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's amusing to see idiots talk about physics. Its unique to any other scientific discipline because no matter how stupid your ideas are, you can always make them appear so groundbreaking, unique, and prodigious with a lot of veneered words.

Hi, Lordknukle.

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter. (Said papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archiveFrank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD56e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68. http://webcitation.org... , http://cloudxeon.com... )

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which Prof. Tipler's August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon, in which Prof. Tipler's June 1989 paper was published, is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website. http://webcitation.org... , http://archive.is... )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

k. im not reading this.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 7:19:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The OP has no idea what he is talking about. I stopped reading when he said that cosmology states the universe will end in a singularity. Modern cosmology tells us that the universe will keep expanding forever. Most cosmologists don't even accept that there was a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. Almost everything the OP said is false. Omega Point cosmology is widely rejected in science. It is supported by nothing; next.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 7:32:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics)"

How so? I accept all the known laws of physics, but reject Omega Point cosmology; what's the problem? There are too many hidden premises in your argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 7:33:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If Omega point cosmology suggests that the universe ends in a singularity, then recent discoveries of dark energy falsify that. The universe will keep expanding forever...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 7:40:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Physicist David Deutsch incorporates Tipler's Omega Point cosmology as a central feature of the fourth strand of his "four strands" concept of fundamental reality and defends the physics of the Omega Point cosmology, although he is highly critical of Tipler's theological conclusions" http://en.wikipedia.org...

So, even if one accepts the physics of Omega Point, that doesn't commit one to any theological conclusions.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 7:43:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Esteemed physicist Sean Carrol called Frank Jennings Tipler a crack pot. And most physicists view Omega Point Cosmology is pseudoscience. If it was so good as the OP would want us to believe, then it would be widely accepted instead of widely rejected.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 7:49:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Tipler's Omega Point occurs when the processing capability effectively becomes infinite, as the processors will be able to simulate every possible future before the universe ends - a state also known as "Aleph""

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If your definition of God is infinite processing ability good for you. So God is now a super computer ?

A few problems. I have no idea what exactly infinite processing is, but whatever it is if this processing happens within the confines of the various scientific laws you mention this seems to me to provide a road block that you can't get around to get infinite processing.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 7:51:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 7:45:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/20/2013 7:43:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
I was going to do a reply, but this is spam.

Why not reply anyway?

Because he's unlikely to reply. From what I've seen on other boards he is just using them to advertise this article. I've reported the post as spam.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 7:59:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"As stated above the argument that the only way to avoid Omega Point is to violate the known laws of physics is patently false. By invoking so many established foundations of science (thermodynamics, relativity etc.) I believe Mr Redford is attempting to intimidate me into thinking that in order to argue against him I will have to reject these established sciences. Sorry Mr Redford, no dice." http://friendofreason.wordpress.com...
Noctan
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 8:24:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This proves absolutely nothing otger than the fact if you think this makes sense you need help.
I can manage my anger if people can manage their stupidity.
JamesRedford
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 5:40:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 7:19:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The OP has no idea what he is talking about. I stopped reading when he said that cosmology states the universe will end in a singularity. Modern cosmology tells us that the universe will keep expanding forever. Most cosmologists don't even accept that there was a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. Almost everything the OP said is false. Omega Point cosmology is widely rejected in science. It is supported by nothing; next.

Hi, Rational_Thinker9119.

The Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems proved that the Big Bang initial cosmological singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Li"ge International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

For much more on the foregoing, see my following article and the resource below it:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com... , http://archive.org... , http://theophysics.host56.com... , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com... , http://sites.google.com...

In the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE). The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com... , http://archive.is... , http://webcitation.org... The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com... , http://ziddu.com... , http://ge.tt...
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, http://ssrn.com... , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com...

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything [TOE]) http://theophysics.ifastnet.com... , http://theophysics.host56.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 6:15:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 5:40:07 PM, JamesRedford wrote:
At 8/20/2013 7:19:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The OP has no idea what he is talking about. I stopped reading when he said that cosmology states the universe will end in a singularity. Modern cosmology tells us that the universe will keep expanding forever. Most cosmologists don't even accept that there was a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. Almost everything the OP said is false. Omega Point cosmology is widely rejected in science. It is supported by nothing; next.

Hi, Rational_Thinker9119.

The Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems proved that the Big Bang initial cosmological singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given attractive gravity.

You were talking about the universe ending in a singularity previously, which is not the case based on what we know about Dark Energy. The universe will most likely keep on expanding forever [http://www.dailymail.co.uk...]. As far as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems are concerned, they are based upon false foundations pertaining to Einstein"s field equations, trapped surfaces, and the
cosmological constant [http://vixra.org...]. Hawking also recants the idea of a singularity, and most mainstream physicist reject the idea:

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow [http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...]

"The BGV theorem, together with some more recent work (e.g., arXiv:1204.4658) suggests that the universe did have some sort of a beginning, but we certainly cannot say that this represents the beginning of space and time. This does not necessarily mean a singularity -- that is, simply, a breakdown of physics." - Alexander Vilenkin

"There is no reason to believe that our Universe came from a singularity, and this outdated idea should have died as soon as inflation was accepted." - Ethan Siegel [http://scienceblogs.com...]

"There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe." - Steven Hawking [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

"... I don"t think that any result dealing with classical spacetimes [singularity] can teach us anything definitive about the beginning of the universe."- Sean Carrol [http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...]

Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct.

Omega point cosmology is not generally accepted in the scientific community, and most scientists due to many problems [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Also why accept the notion that Omega Point Cosmology actually proves God?

As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

You haven't demonstrated how the theorem assumes that if General Relativity and General Relativity are true, then the theorem holds. Also, if the theorem holds, what does this say about God? Also, how do you define God?


Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity.

Actually the idea of Quantum Cosmology actually makes the idea of a singularity obsolete. Singularities only hold when taking just General Relativity into account.

(As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J.

Read my quote from John Barrow

Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Li"ge International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

For much more on the foregoing, see my following article and the resource below it:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com... , http://archive.org... , http://theophysics.host56.com... , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com... , http://sites.google.com...

In the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE). The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com... , http://archive.is... , http://webcitation.org... The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com... , http://ziddu.com... , http://ge.tt...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 6:18:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 5:40:07 PM, JamesRedford wrote:
At 8/20/2013 7:19:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The OP has no idea what he is talking about. I stopped reading when he said that cosmology states the universe will end in a singularity. Modern cosmology tells us that the universe will keep expanding forever. Most cosmologists don't even accept that there was a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. Almost everything the OP said is false. Omega Point cosmology is widely rejected in science. It is supported by nothing; next.

Hi, Rational_Thinker9119.

The Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems proved that the Big Bang initial cosmological singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Li"ge International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

For much more on the foregoing, see my following article and the resource below it:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com... , http://archive.org... , http://theophysics.host56.com... , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com... , http://sites.google.com...

In the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE). The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com... , http://archive.is... , http://webcitation.org... The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com... , http://ziddu.com... , http://ge.tt...

I accidentally forgot to quote you at parts at the bottom of my last post, so it may look like I posted something, but really it is you.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 1:52:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 7:19:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The OP has no idea what he is talking about. I stopped reading when he said that cosmology states the universe will end in a singularity. Modern cosmology tells us that the universe will keep expanding forever. Most cosmologists don't even accept that there was a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. Almost everything the OP said is false. Omega Point cosmology is widely rejected in science. It is supported by nothing; next.

Source please. I thought most cosmologists held to such the idea.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 1:56:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
RT, I don't wish to sound negatively critical, but the way you talk down to people clearly needs to be improved. This is not how rational discussion is achieved, if you don't like what someone is saying, why bag it? Ignoring it is a far better choice. You are staining a culture of open-mindedness and civil discussion that other members are trying to create.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 7:13:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 1:52:17 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/20/2013 7:19:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The OP has no idea what he is talking about. I stopped reading when he said that cosmology states the universe will end in a singularity. Modern cosmology tells us that the universe will keep expanding forever. Most cosmologists don't even accept that there was a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. Almost everything the OP said is false. Omega Point cosmology is widely rejected in science. It is supported by nothing; next.

Source please. I thought most cosmologists held to such the idea.

Source? LMAO I sourced the top cosmologists in game who disagree with a singularity; read the quotes in my last post. Did you even read my post?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 7:14:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 1:56:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
RT, I don't wish to sound negatively critical, but the way you talk down to people clearly needs to be improved.

You are talking down to me right now, I never talked down to anybody.

This is not how rational discussion is achieved, if you don't like what someone is saying, why bag it?

I didn't "bag it", I responded with an appropriate response.

Ignoring it is a far better choice. You are staining a culture of open-mindedness and civil discussion that other members are trying to create.

No I am not, quit making things up.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 7:16:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 1:56:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
RT, I don't wish to sound negatively critical, but the way you talk down to people clearly needs to be improved. This is not how rational discussion is achieved, if you don't like what someone is saying, why bag it? Ignoring it is a far better choice. You are staining a culture of open-mindedness and civil discussion that other members are trying to create.

Instead of coming at me with Ad Hominems, why not actually discuss the issue at hand? Ironically, the only one staining any conversation here is you with your personal attacks against me.