The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Laity can mean
1. Laypeople considered as a group.
2. All those persons who are not members of a given profession or other specialized field.
So worry not.

Sorry, that reference was to post #249 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=249)

Here’s an illustration of that toy universe (not ours). It’s a toy model because it’s just a two dimensional spacetime. There one spatial dimension and one temporal direction. It has the geometry of a sphere. Nothing outside the sphere exists. Think only of the surface of the sphere; i.e. think of what it would be like if that sphere represented all of spacetime. Time in this model runs along the meridians. Space runs along the circles of latitude. At any given moment the spatial universe is a circle (except at the Big Bang and at the Big Crunch when its a degenerate circle; i.e. a point). It’s a pretty boring toy universe since the space you live in is just one dimensional. As you follow the time from the Bang to the Crunch the circle universe expands to a maximum and then contracts back to a point. The circles do not expand into space. There is no space outside the sphere. At any given time, each circle is all the space there is. There is no other space to expand into. When the circle expands, it is all of space that is expanding. When the circle contracts it is all of space that is contracting. Just for fun I drew the worldline of an imaginary god named Tom who is born in the big bang and dies in the big crunch.

Out of curiosity, are we speaking of just one of these models...or a multitude of these models (either as part of the same "fabric" or different dimensions but overlapping/intersecting)...assuming multiple universes ...or just one?

(love the model BTW)

Here I've just been describing the attempt to select the one model from a class of models (known as the Lemaitre, Friedman, Robertson, Walker models) that best fits the current observations; a universe (not the one pictured by the way...it seems our universe will be spared the future crunch). The class of theoretical possibilities (homogeneous, isotropic solutions to the Einstein field equations) is parametrized my just a handful of constants (value of the cosmological constant, critical densities of radiation and matter). The consensus is that the current fit is fairly good.

There are multiverse scenarios that are invoked in various attempts to address the fine-tuning problem, but these are highly speculative ventures and there is not consensus on their correctness.

Thank you teacher. I think I can wrap my mind around that...(what's left of it).

Last lesson for a while. Turns out I’m on the road again for a another two weeks. My contributions here will probably be sparse and erratic. Okay, last attempt to clarify a difficult notion:

Most people here took a little bit of Euclidean plane geometry in school. You learned the Euclidean axioms. Things like...

Given a line and a point not on the line, there is a unique second line through the point which is parallel to the given line.

Two distinct points determine a unique line.

The shortest distance between two points lies along the unique line that passes through them.

Etc.

You probably developed the theory triangles, congruence, proportionality and so forth using these axioms; i.e. you proved theorems using logical inferences that were grounded my the axioms of plane geometry. In fact everything one could ever want to know about flat plane geometry is contained in that handful of axioms. You could also learn the axioms of Euclidean solid geometry, but that’s another subject. Euclidean plane geometry doesn’t require those axioms. Euclidean plane geometry can stand alone. You don’t need solid space to contemplate the geometry of a two-dimensional plane. You don’t even have to have a mental picture of a plane. Newton is said to have erased all the pictures from Euclid before working through it to make sure the theorems were proven with logic alone without the crutch of pictorial illusion.

Spherical geometry is the just like that. There are axioms you can learn to do spherical geometry. Things like....

Every pair of distinct lines intersect in exactly two distinct points, called antipodal points.

Any two non-antipodal points determine a unique line.

Given any two point on a line, the shortest distance between any two non-antipodal points lies along one of the arcs of the unique line passing through those points.

Etc.

Just like in plane geometry, one can go on and define spherical triangles and prove theorems about them. In fact one you have all the axioms of spherical geometry (it’s just a handful) you can develop the complete theory of the whole subject. The axioms answer every question you can ask in the language of spherical geometry. Like Newton, you don’t have to draw any pictures, you don’t even have to picture a sphere. The axioms of spherical geometry stand alone. You do not need the axioms of solid three dimensional space to justify them. In fact adding the axioms of solid space would be adding additional assumptions to a subject that is already complete and independent. Spherical geometry does not require three-dimensional solid geometry.

The two-dimensional toy model of the universe I’ve introduced in the last few posts has the geometry of a sphere. That geometry is sufficient for the description of our toy model. We don’t need to picture the sphere (though it’s always nice to have a picture). Picturing it sitting inside a three-dimensional space just brings in extra unnecessary assumptions. If you must picture try picturing it alone. Picture living on the surface of the sphere. Don’t picture living outside it like a three-dimensional god looking at from without. To properly comprehend this toy model of a universe, you must imagine what life is like on the surface of that two-dimensional spacetime. What it’s like to be a one-dimensional creature who lives in a one-dimensional space. What it’s like to discover that if you travel far enough in one direction you eventually return to where you were. What is like to discover the each time the trip around gets longer, until at some moment in time the trips around start get shorter and shorter. There is nothing else in this world but the one-dimensional space in which you live and time. You toy universe has a finite age, yet there is not time before it, no space outside it and no time after.

Bye. See ya all later.

LOL..... Sometimes I feel like his advocate!!! something quite sexy about being naughty, or so I have been told anyway!? xxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeninety

Don't lose faith Bella.......That was just the Devil making a brief appearance:hide-1:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeninety

Innumerable factors have fallen into place to allow life on our planet if one of those factors was out, then we would not be here, that is not a fluke, that is precision engineering.
I agree on this point, but if you look at all of the galaxies and universes and if you figure 1% of the suns have planets and 1% of the planets are in the "correct position" and 1% of them happens to get hit with a space born bacteria and 1% of them survived AND 1% developed intelligent life we are still looking at 10 or 100 of thousands of planets with life. So yes we are a fluke.

Lets say now our creator who is probably beyond this universe created this place for us to exist, if we look at the some of the rules and fundamental truths embedded into this universe then it would stand to reason that good and bad things are going to happen.

Why would any creator want to have bad this happen to his creations? That is cruel and therefore not "god worthy"

Also should God intervene or be held accountable (bearing in mind the whole free will thing) for the evil that men do.

If man made bad things happen then surely it is man's fault:confused:

---

Once again why would a "benevolent" god allow anything not of his or here design to foul up his or her creation. We live because we got lucky as have others in numerous universes, not due to a "god". Show one provable fact, just one, and I might look into it. Hell they don't even have the written record of Mary and Joseph traveling to be counted and thousands of other are recorded. And a Virgin birth, how stupid was Joseph to believe that over his wife's obvious infidelity. If Virgin birth was possible why is there no other cases in the last 2000 years or so. That is why Catholics who use the rhythm method of birth control are called parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeninety

Dorkins is a plonk his God Delusion book is just that "his delusion" as he raps on about the Christians lack of proof about the existence of god not once does he actually provide evidence to the contrary, even though he claims he will.

Anyone who reveres this little man from no where and regards his twaddle as engrossing is sadly as deluded as he is, about the nature of this reality and our existence.


The religion of Aethism is as ridiculous as the rest of them.........Although I have to say I am partial to a bit of Buddism:pumped:

---

Oh Joe, c'mon now. Dawkins is a wonderful scientist and a magnificent communicator to a non scientific audiences of ideas in his field. I agree that his invective against religion is tiresome but he is hardly a "little man."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin48

Always thought as an atheist to take a theology degree and just disagree with everything. Should be an easy course as they have just one set text.

---

Martin, being an atheist is probably the best criterion for the study of theology -it immediately suggests a lack of bias in a subject which seems, in a manner of speaking, pre-destined to divide opinion depending on affiliations. It also seems to be a useful career pathway: here for example Cambridge shows how useful a degree in Theology and Religious Studies can be:

What can I do with a degree in TRS?

Because of the breadth of the degree in Theology and Religious Studies (TRS), graduates are well equipped to enter a wide range of professions. Recent graduates have gone into Banking, the Civil Service, Law Conversion Course, Teaching, Journalism, Charity Administration, further Academic study and Religious Ministry.

In addition to the work and study skills offered by any degree at this level, students of TRS develop particular abilities in assessing and presenting widely different kinds of evidence, understanding arguments with which they may not agree, and clarifying ideas and approaches to life that are different from their own.
Here are some jobs being done by 2009 graduates:

• Event Organiser
• Legal Representative/Caseworker (Asylum =Immigration)
• Tax collector
• Assistant to Musical Director
• Secondary school teacher (philosophy and religious studies)
• Office Manager
• DirectNews Correspondent
• Junior Research Fellow
• Graduate Assistant / Distance Learning Tutor
• Journalist
• Producer
• Stagiare europeen-European Voluntary Service placement
• Corporate Manager

http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/apply/...-degree-in-trs