The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[Jamie Michelle]

pseudoscience :dancing:

The Theory of Everything is an incredible arrogance of this Christian physicist, Frank Tipler

Your above comment is the logical fallacy of bare assertion.

In actually, pseudoscience would be attempting to avoid the Omega Point cosmology, since it is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. 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].)

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. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

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 the above, see my following article (published under my legal name):

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. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://www.scribd.com/doc/79273334

[Jamie Michelle]

So God exists based on a specific view of the laws of physics?
In other words,ONLY if you look at the laws this way and no other way?

Hate to break it to you but if God were PROVEN to exist it would have been the news story of all time... It would be in every news show and paper in existence.

But instead we're reading about it in a porn forum.....seems legit.

The Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. The Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. 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].)

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.

Regarding your statements above, they are the logical fallacy of bare assertion.

[Stavros]

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.

How tedious to have to go over this again and again -Omega Point Cosmology is an untested theory which makes ridiculous non-scientific claims about the end-times and the human element in the collapse of the universe- allow this extract from a critique to suffice, the full link is below.

Mr Redford’s first point is that the evidence for Tipler’s Omega Point is “the laws of physics themselves”. Well I’m sorry Mr Redford but just because something is possible within the laws of physics does not constitute evidence! Astronomers aren’t allowed to invent new astral bodies simply because they could exist and Biologists are not entitled to invent animals just because the laws of physics would allow them to be.

Mr Redford then acknowledges that in 1994 Tipler didn’t have experimental confirmation of his theory but claims he does now. Not only does this contradict Mr Redford’s initial assertion that evidence lies in the laws of physics themselves but he fails to provide a link or description of this supposed experimental confirmation (which I failed to find myself). Mr Redford claims that the only way to avoid Omega Point is to violate the know laws of physics, this is just patently absurd. The destruction of the human race or our lack of ability (or willingness) to invent a supercomputer at the end of time that will in it’s infinite intelligence decide that resurrecting every human is a valuable use of its time is not only possible within the laws of physics but probable (and thus invalidates Mr Redford’s argument). Lastly Mr Redford constructs an argument from authority where he claims Tipler correctly predicted the mass of the top quark which even if true has no bearing on whether or not Omega Point Theory is fact.


http://friendofreason.wordpress.com/...-theory-redux/

[Jamie Michelle]

How tedious to have to go over this again and again -Omega Point Cosmology is an untested theory which makes ridiculous non-scientific claims about the end-times and the human element in the collapse of the universe- allow this extract from a critique to suffice, the full link is below.

Mr Redford’s first point is that the evidence for Tipler’s Omega Point is “the laws of physics themselves”. Well I’m sorry Mr Redford but just because something is possible within the laws of physics does not constitute evidence! Astronomers aren’t allowed to invent new astral bodies simply because they could exist and Biologists are not entitled to invent animals just because the laws of physics would allow them to be.

Mr Redford then acknowledges that in 1994 Tipler didn’t have experimental confirmation of his theory but claims he does now. Not only does this contradict Mr Redford’s initial assertion that evidence lies in the laws of physics themselves but he fails to provide a link or description of this supposed experimental confirmation (which I failed to find myself). Mr Redford claims that the only way to avoid Omega Point is to violate the know laws of physics, this is just patently absurd. The destruction of the human race or our lack of ability (or willingness) to invent a supercomputer at the end of time that will in it’s infinite intelligence decide that resurrecting every human is a valuable use of its time is not only possible within the laws of physics but probable (and thus invalidates Mr Redford’s argument). Lastly Mr Redford constructs an argument from authority where he claims Tipler correctly predicted the mass of the top quark which even if true has no bearing on whether or not Omega Point Theory is fact.

http://friendofreason.wordpress.com/...-theory-redux/

Since the Omega Point cosmology is itself logically required by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics)--of which themselves have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date--this makes the Omega Point cosmology itself the most-confirmed statement in physics. And again, the Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. 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].)

Below is my reply to Christian Polson-Brown's above post, of which post by Polson-Brown you above provide an excerpt:

James Redford, "Reply to Christian Polson-Brown, No. 2", net.science.physics.misc, Message-ID: qeni86967vie0gad0o216iok11mp84bksd@4ax.com , 09 Sep 2010 18:21:23 -0400. http://groups.google.com/group/net.s...e7170bd8aaa1d1

Christian Polson-Brown didn't reply to my foregoing response to him, which is just as well if he were still liable to be adverse to it, since logically speaking the only correct response is either to reject the known laws of physics (which itself is irrational since they have been confirmed by every experiment to date) or to accept the Omega Point cosmology.

[Stavros]

You continuously refer back to the paper you have posted on the web, but never explain why your own fetish for the 'End-times', the 'Rapture' or the fantastic nonsense you claim for computing and human beings is in any way relevant to cosmology, because you could just say you are a born-again Christian who thinks that only people who change their beliefs to share yours will be saved on the Day of Judgement as you will be saved. It is an act of cowardice on your part because you prefer to preface with junk science your true intentions, just as you claim the US Government has covered up 'the truth' about 9/11.

In addition, you are peddling the pseudo-anarchist philosphy of Ayn Rand and Hans-Hermann Hoppe in a desperate attempt to prove that 'Jesus is an Anarchist' in order to bring other Christians to agree with your philosophy; for someone who condemns most people as 'sheeple' it is quite odd that you should want to deny them/us our independent capacity for thought.

[yosi]

Your above comment is the logical fallacy of bare assertion.

In actually, pseudoscience would be attempting to avoid the Omega Point cosmology, since it is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. 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].)

Quoting Prof. Stephen Hawking to potect a THEORY , that in the bottom line says: Jesus Christ exists and he is God's Messiah, his bodily resurrection is possible- is a cheap propaganda and pure pseudoscience.

you want to believe that Jesus Christ exists and he is God's Messiah? go ahead , believe in it , but supporting it with pseudoscience? no thanx.

[hippifried]

I don't really care about any junk science. I just cringe at the hubris it takes for someone to not only tell me that they know the universe was goblin created, but that they're the messenger for such a critter. Sorry Spud, but I'm all out of faith.

[loveboof]

It is an act of cowardice on your part because you prefer to preface with junk science your true intentions

I completely agree Stavros. Also, I really don't understand why Jamie just seems to copy & paste the same bog standard response to everyone!

As I said months ago, the whole point of making a thread like this is to encourage discussion, but all Jamie does is shut down and spout out the same nonsense like a completely brainwashed member of a cult...

It's weird - like a mantra she has to keep telling herself in order to keep believing.

[hippifried]

I completely agree Stavros. Also, I really don't understand why Jamie just seems to copy & paste the same bog standard response to everyone!

As I said months ago, the whole point of making a thread like this is to encourage discussion, but all Jamie does is shut down and spout out the same nonsense like a completely brainwashed member of a cult...

It's weird - like a mantra she has to keep telling herself in order to keep believing.

Uh... That's Jaimie's blog, based on Jaimie's "book"(I'm not sure if it was ever published on paper). Irrespective of what you, I, or any detractors think about the content, the source is the same for the most part. Posting all these links just avoids a lot of retyping. Is there really a problem with that? Regardless of agreement, or lack thereof, Jaimie has always been consistant, & has put a lot of thought into all this. Just ssyin'.

[loveboof]

No I don't mean the links. I mean this sort of thing:

- required by the known laws of physics (i.e. the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics)

- mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. 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].)

Just spouted out in every single comment regardless of what she's replying to. Every time...

[edit: And Stephen Hawking doesn't publically support any of Jamies pseudoscience, so using his quote out of context to make it appear like he supports this BS is cheap. Exactly what some flimsy pseudoscientist would attempt for credibility!]