God Proven by Known Laws of Physics and Theory of Everything

[InHouston]

Fuck, the cut and paste research machine is back!!!!! Welcome back Jamie Michelle, are you fully loaded with reference links after the hiatus?

No shit. This makes me want to puke. If you claim to prove that the known laws of physics prove the existence of God, then those laws are dead wrong. It's no more complicated than that.

And ... I find the authenticity of the technical writing by Trish and Jamie to be highly suspect, or quite frankly a load of bullshit.

Example of an authentic post:

yes, hippiefried, 2 quarts plus 2 quarts still equals 4 quarts, unless they're quarts of miscible fluids, in which case you could get 3 quarts. also on the USS Cane, 2 quarts of strawberries plus another two quarts of strawberries may turn out to be a half pint short of four quarts.

See what I mean? Bad grammar and nonsense. She used "they're" when "their" should have been used. And she threw in the archaic word "miscible" to impress everyone, when "mixable" would have sufficed.

As a software engineer, I see this kind of crap all the time straight out of the Department Of Over Engineering, which is usually wrong in the end. I would bet you my left arm that if you got Trish and Jamie around some established physicists, you'd be surprised to find that they really don't know what they're talking about.

[Jamie Michelle]

Fuck, the cut and paste research machine is back!!!!! Welcome back Jamie Michelle, are you fully loaded with reference links after the hiatus?

No shit. This makes me want to puke. If you claim to prove that the known laws of physics prove the existence of God, then those laws are dead wrong. It's no more complicated than that.

And ... I find the authenticity of the technical writing by Trish and Jamie to be highly suspect, or quite frankly a load of bullshit.

Example of an authentic post:

yes, hippiefried, 2 quarts plus 2 quarts still equals 4 quarts, unless they're quarts of miscible fluids, in which case you could get 3 quarts. also on the USS Cane, 2 quarts of strawberries plus another two quarts of strawberries may turn out to be a half pint short of four quarts.

See what I mean? Bad grammar and nonsense. She used "they're" when "their" should have been used. And she threw in the archaic word "miscible" to impress everyone, when "mixable" would have sufficed.

As a software engineer, I see this kind of crap all the time straight out of the Department Of Over Engineering, which is usually wrong in the end. I would bet you my left arm that if you got Trish and Jamie around some established physicists, you'd be surprised to find that they really don't know what they're talking about.

In Trish's defense, "miscible" is a common word in chemistry and materials science. And "miscible" is not a synonym for "mixable." See:

"Miscibility," Wikipedia, December 8, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=330355224

Regarding the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), to reject them would be 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 Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory 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.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed science and physics journals in which Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published:

- Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661; doi:10.1007/BF00670475. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)

- Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253; doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tip...s-eschaton.pdf , http://www.gazup.com/FLQT0-tipler-om...wnload-mirrors Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, edited by Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), ISBN: 0812693256, pp. 156-194.

- Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation," Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43; doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W.

- Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe," NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tip...ic-rockets.pdf See also: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ntk=...tt=19990023204 , http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1999021520.pdf

- Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant," arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000, edited by J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), ISBN: 0735400261; and in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), pp. 769-772; doi:10.1063/1.1419654.

- Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148; doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tip...-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

- Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem," arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640; doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x.

- F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above 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 Theory (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 is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--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. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=...ghts/0034-4885 )

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. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For much more on these matters, see my original post in this thread in addition to Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and the following resource:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com , http://theophysics.110mb.com

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying 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. (Again, for the details on that, see Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper.)

-----

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 wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing 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 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 this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[trish]

The reference to the USS Cane strawberry fiasco is a hint that my post was made with a certain grain of levity. As Jamie points out, my use of the word “miscible” was deliberate and correct. Also I wish to point out that "are" is the verb of the phrase, “…unless they're quarts of miscible fluids…”; i.e. the use of the word "they're" as opposed to "their" is also deliberate and correct.

Btw, when one mixes two fluids, one expects the mass of the mixture to equal the sum of the masses of the original two components. This is surprisingly not always the case with volume. It can happen that when one stirs together two volumes of miscible fluids, the result will take up less volume then the space occupied by the original two fluids. I agree that this is not high powered science. I learned this bit of "nonsense" in tenth grade chemistry.

Sorry that even with eleven months between posts you (InHoustin) still can’t keep up. But hey, don’t quit. Just keep tryin’.

[Rogers]

Sorry that even with eleven months between posts you (InHoustin) still can’t keep up. But hey, don’t quit. Just keep tryin’.

InHouston failing at trolling again? Now there's a shocker!

[trish]

In the context of general relativity (GR) the two-body problem doesn’t have a closed form solution. Nevertheless, it is easy to ascertain from the field equations that there are no stable two-body systems (i.e. systems that cannot be approximated over the relevant time scales by a central body and a test particle). The reason is that in GR, two-body systems create gravitational waves that carry energy away from the mutually orbiting bodies. As the system loses energy the orbits tighten. In time the two bodies spiral continuously in toward each other and crash. In the case of two black holes, the singularities would merge to one. Moreover, GR predicts the gravitational radiation from a two-body system would exhibit (over time) a continuous spectrum of frequencies. These are consequences of the GR quadrupole radiation formula. (See Classical Fields: General Relativity and gauge Theory by Moshe Carmel, World Scientific, 2001, pgs 253-254. Or for a more recent and detailed analysis http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0603/0603038v1.pdf . )

Currently we have no universal understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as it applies to gravitational systems. But all attempts at an understanding require that the quadrupole radiation of such systems exhibit (over time) discrete spectra. The gluons of these quantized gauge theories are known as gravitons. (See for example: The Synchrotron production of gravitons by the binary system by Miroslav Pardy in General Relativity and Gravitation Vol 15 No 11 1983).

So GR predicts the gravitational radiation of a two-body system will exhibit (over time) a continuous spectrum. QFTs predict the spectrum will be discrete.

Jamie, I’m not asking for a proof that some version of QFT is consistent with GR. Frankly, I’m not up to searching for the error in a long technical argument. I just want to know why two contradictory predictions don’t count as proof of mutual inconsistency!?

I take it that your current research is in the area of quantum gravity and that you’re in hot pursuit of the consequences of Tipler’s theory. Quantum gravity is not my field of expertise. I’m curious: has anyone shown whether Tipler’s theory of everything is generally covariant?