The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Dr. Tipler was actually a very promising researcher in the area of General Relativity. His early papers display a mastery of the field, a fertile and a creative mind. Reading his Causally Symmetric Spacetimes and his Causality Violation was an early learning experience for me.

What he lacks, in his later works, is intellectual integrity:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co.../#.UV4HKoKKc7A

I suspect that Tipler retains an expertise in theoretical physics sufficient for guiding undergraduates and first or second year graduate students through the standard courses. Those courses are concerned with learning technical knowledge and not so much concerned with developing research skills and developing the intellectual honesty and self-criticism requisite for doing original research. Often the technical courses are taught by the “teaching” faculty while the more creative courses are taught by the research faculty and graduate faculty.

Perhaps for somewhat selfish reasons, I favor the protections provided by the tenure system. Short of firing a errant professor, there are measures that departments and universities can take to prevent quacks from doing damage to the education of students. They can be relegated to the teaching faculty (provided they are competent to teach the technical courses). They can also be denied the authority to advise students in their thesis research. Better yet, they can be promoted to non-teaching administrative positions :)

IMO Tipler shouldn’t be drawing tax-payer money from government sponsored grants for projects relating to his omega point theory. This latter may be a mute point. I do not know of any government grant money currently supporting any of Tipler’s more current projects.

Full marks for a subtle post Ms tenured professor

If you watch the discussion linked in Jamie's post 'Einstein vs Darwin', Tipler states categorically that he is a determinist when his interlocutor asks him if it is true that it was pre-determined that the two of them would sit down and have a discussion on that particular day, and Tipler energetically replies Yes! (And, of course, the 'force' that has made this possible is God). Gilbert Ryle criticised/demolished determinism in one his lectures (in Dilemmas), using an example such as: if it is true that I was going to rise at 6am and shave today and cut myself in the process, it was true 10,000 years ago. For Ryle, this is not just illogical, but an abuse of language.

It gets worse, not only does Tipler in the same video claim there are many facsimiles of 'us' in the 'multi-verse' but either here or in the power-point linked in Jamie's post states that we are creations of those super-computer beings of the future who have created/re-created every living thing since the Big Bang, which is why some link his theories to The Matrix, Blade Runner and so on.

Tipler and his apostle Jamie seem to suggest that all the problems of Physics and Cosmology have been solved by the Omega Point hypothesis -we are here to do God's work and acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God and Our Salvation- even though in today's paper I read that we still don't know what 'dark matter' is although scientists are getting closer to an explanation of it.

I don't have a problem with anyone turning to religion for comfort, for community, for certainty, whatever, but I do think it is a waste of time to link hard science to religious belief, as people can, and do believe anything. I do not think it is harmful to students, as most students will not be impressed with any kind of preaching from the lectern, be it Omega Point Cosmology, Marxism, or Free Market Capitalism, although some will for a time be swayed by such things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Better yet, they can be promoted to non-teaching administrative positions :)

---

Start a petition. Frank Tipler, Dean of Tulane University?:)

I tend to agree with you Trish about the importance of tenure. There are good reasons to support its protections. If I understand them properly, they are to encourage free thought and research without there being too strong an imperative to conform to academic orthodoxy.

But then to harken back to Tipler's own analogy, is there a difference between Galileo and Frank Tipler? Galileo was mistreated because his theories challenged church orthodoxy. In other words it wasn't a matter of him saying things that were borderline incoherent or relying on sleight of hand.

Sometimes I think overbroad protections really reflect mistrust of man. We cannot tell the difference between someone who has no academic integrity and who is peddling junk science and someone who has challenged the status quo. I suppose given the fact that it sometimes takes years before a theory is recognized and supported, perhaps there's no way to distinguish Tipler from Galileo in the short term.

Some think tenure may be more important for the less mathematical sciences (e.g. economics, sociology, anthropology, history etc.) where interpretation is more nuanced and divergent.

I don’t know whether Padua had a tenure system in the time of Galileo or not, but it wasn’t academia that stiffled his freedom of expression, it was his Church. I’m not a historian of science but I’m given the impression that Galileo was rather well received by his peers in the academic field then known as natural philosophy. Even the Church recognized his work as significant. The Inquistion merely wanted Galileo to confess that the Copernican theory was merely a device that simplified calculations; that is was figuratively true but not literally true.

In comparison, Tipler’s Omega Theory was publish in 1995 (18 years ago) and it has yet to gain any significant support from other physicists. Remember that science moves much faster today than in Galileo’s time. Eighteen years with no takers is a long time. Tipler’s case is not at all analogous to Galileo (imo).

But not all disagreements in science are as easy to call, and so talented, creative thinkers should be afforded some protections. That’s why it doesn’t upset me that Tipler maintains his tenure and continues his work.

The real argument against tenure (I think) is that because of it certain departments tend to get lopsided. Suppose a majority of the tenured positions in a certain school of economics are held by supply side economists. Even if the supply side theory is exploded and falls into disgrace, unless the supply siders at that school change their tunes, they will continue to dominate economics as it’s practiced at their school. They will continue to hire supply siders and graduate supply siders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Tipler’s case is not at all analogous to Galileo (imo).

---

I was hoping you would say that. Whereas Galileo said things that were unpopular because they contradicted church dogma, Tipler says things that (though no scientist myself) I imagine are not valued because they are methodologically and descriptively questionable. Whereas Galileo's work was valued within the scientific community, Tipler's has not received much if any support. Even in the article you posted, his quotations posit things as starting assumptions that seem far from axiomatic.

I don't want to give examples because someone more familiar with this might say, "yeah didn't you know? It was established quite a while ago that life guides the universe and therefore is co-extensive with it. Therefore, life is omnipresent in the universe. Also, transcendent is spelled "transcendant". C'mon get with it."

But yes, thank you for your responses Trish. I agree with what you have said about the pros and cons of the tenure system. Very informative!

I'm not too confident they'll be giving Prof Tipler a New Book or Testament in the Bible, however, I'm positive that if I could pick the life of Jesus, or Mickey Mantle, or King Herod, or Martin Luther King, or Steven Spielberg, or Stephen King, I'd opt for the Life of Jesus.
My brother grew up with a guy named Ned Wright, he's a World Class Cosmologist now, they still keep in touch. My Mom used to substitute teach in Grammar School, she didn't like little Ned. He was a know-it-all who always corrected the teachers.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/intro.html

Yep, that's him. He was on that team that won the Nobel Prize for their work on the Big Bang Theory, he'd email my brother juicy factoids, like the head guy was also the "Mom" of the group, he'd have to unruffle feathers and soothe hurt feelings and stuff.

God exists true ,but not for me and never will.so who belleve in God look no more arround you lol

We are a fluke of the cosmos, there is no God, there are many religions that try to prove a god but no proof, ZERO, yet we have documented evidence of events 65 million to 3.5 billion years ago. Only writing of man to prove a god, if he is there we should know. Faith, BS, I take nothing on faith, unless you can prove it it does not exist. We here all the time about things like pulsars, quarks, dark matter etc. all have been proven why is there no proof of a god.

And if there is a god why does he let so many bad things happen to good people and why does he allow his name to be used to start "holy" wars. You would think that some omnipotent being would step in and stop it. Live your life not let someone tell you how and why you Must do things according to their religion.

my .02

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch - you must first invent the universe

-Carl Sagan

Well I liked it

"Evolution of the Species by Terence Mckenna.mp4", SourceCode10, Feb. 6, 2013. Evolution of the Species by Terence Mckenna.mp4 - YouTube

Jamie, I thought you would like to know (if you don't already) that Jesus is back and living with Mary Magdalene, in Australia. He worked in IT for a while, and the Crucifixion didn't hurt that much. I am sure he would like to read and comment on your paper 'Jesus is an Anarchist'. Best wishes.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/former-spec...l?vp=1#1ReVSIf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talldudeil

We are a fluke of the cosmos, there is no God, there are many religions that try to prove a god but no proof, ZERO, yet we have documented evidence of events 65 million to 3.5 billion years ago. Only writing of man to prove a god, if he is there we should know. Faith, BS, I take nothing on faith, unless you can prove it it does not exist. We here all the time about things like pulsars, quarks, dark matter etc. all have been proven why is there no proof of a god.

And if there is a god why does he let so many bad things happen to good people and why does he allow his name to be used to start "holy" wars. You would think that some omnipotent being would step in and stop it. Live your life not let someone tell you how and why you Must do things according to their religion.

my .02

---

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.

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.

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:

And if the gods made bad things, then the fault was surely theirs. But no...it Eve's fault! Let's all blame it on Eve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

And if the gods made bad things, then the fault was surely theirs. But no...it Eve's fault! Let's all blame it on Eve.

---

Don't blame it on the sunshine / Don't blame it on the moonlight / Don't blame it on good times / Blame it on the boogie :whistle:

ahh.... a devotee of the anthropic principle. And where beyond our universe might this creative force live?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

ahh.... a devotee of the anthropic principle. And where beyond our universe might this creative force live?

---

I am a devotee of life, logic and when all else fails??? I cannot comprehend infinity nor would I even bother trying too, that will probably always be incomprehensible:)

I have seen enough to know their is a much bigger picture, anyone can see if they choose to be adventurous and decide to actually open their eyes.

Once you do you no longer have to take things on faith nor theory;)

Prospero, as I pointed out in the earlier post, a third of the Trinity, with Mary Magdalene are living in Queensland, Australia. Do try to keep up. Its not like we are on the satellite of a Red Dwarf waiting for the sun to shine and ripen out grapes.

darn... sorry Stavros. i missed that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

And if the gods made bad things, then the fault was surely theirs. But no...it Eve's fault! Let's all blame it on Eve.

---

I thought it went like this.

Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the snake. And the snake didn't have a leg to stand on!

http://edrevets.files.wordpress.com/...ds-kitchen.jpg
http://theviolethourmuse.files.wordp...king-class.jpg
http://www.drinkatwork.com/wp-conten...1/voteNYer.jpg

Ouch!
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/...268-custom.jpg

http://www.relativelyinteresting.com...nal+poster.jpg

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...Kpkrl4olw1kGOB

http://unitedcats.files.wordpress.co...s-universe.jpg

Don't you love this one? Now that has to be a great book...
http://drdivaphd.files.wordpress.com...iva-verdun.jpg

I don't know what happened. I started with the intent of making a snide remark and this came out. Sorry.

If General Relativity (GR) is even partly reliable, the cosmos (in which we find space and time and the stars and galaxies that nature our lives and imaginations) passed through a period of high density and rapid expansion. The classic GR-equations only describe the expansion. They do not describe a big bang but only a singularity; i.e. a boundary on and beyond which the equations, our current understanding, do not apply.

Dynamically perhaps the very very early universe was a simple place. What could be simpler than isotropic, homogeneous, uniform expansion? But the physics was anything but simple. When the entire universe is smaller than a proton, the macro-world collides with micro-world. In this domain we have difficulty construing the notions of information, entropy, space and time. We only surmise that at the end of this brief, brief Planckian period there was space-time and there was energy; both in rapid expansion and with incredibly low entropy (packed with information).

The early universe was so compressed photons could not escape from the confines of the hot charged particles that at these temperatures would hurl them at relativistic speeds as gamma radiation. Instead photons remained trapped within. The very universe was hot, yet black. The heat was so intense nucleons couldn’t catch hold of each other to form atoms. But as the expansion continued and the cosmos cooled, nucleons were able to bond and form hydrogen, helium and some lithium (surprisingly the proportions of those elements that exist today are as predicted by theory). This periodic is known as the era of cosmic nucleosynthesis. The end of this period marks the decoupling of photons from the hot particles now free to produce and eject them. The universe filled with a hot photon gas. Unimaginable. A gas of highly energetic light particles blowing across the universe at the maximum speed limit. All space was filled with this searing gas, hot enough to vaporize hell. Now it is less than three degrees above absolute zero, a cool, omnipresent microwave radiation which makes its presence known as a weak static to those who known how to tune into it; so innocuous it was mistaken by its discoverers as a nest of pigeons who found harbor in their antennae. Today we call it the CMB (cosmic microwave background); it was quantitatively predicted by theory and figures as one of the earliest evidences of the theory of cosmic expansion (named by its opponents The Big Bang Theory).

Lucky for us the universe wasn’t perfectly homogeneous and isotropic. Nothing is perfect, but the universe isn’t nothing. The small differences in the density of matter between one region and another created gravitational slopes, swoops, swells and wells that drew clouds and dust together into clumps, lumps, spheres, rotating discs etc. Gravity is weird this way. It has negative heat capacity. Leave a hydrogen gas and some dust alone in a gravitational field and it will begin to heat up. Dropping from regions of high potential energy it picks up kinetic energy (heat). If you got enough gas gravity will compress it into a ball with a warm center. More gas, a hot center. More gas and dust, a fiery center. More hydrogen and the gravitational pressure will force the hydrogen to fuse into helium and ignite a star. The stars clump, lump and swirl into galaxies and generations of stars working with heavier and heavier fuels fuse heavier and heavier elements. The abundances of elements predicted by this model of galactic evolution match the abundances surveyed by our best telescopes. From these elements the planets formed. The planets, bathed in the outward flux of energy that pours from the stars they orbit, evolved complex geologies, atmospheres, climates and surface chemistries. No planet is a closed system. Ordinary equilibrium thermodynamics does not readily apply. The climate and surface chemistry of a planet are continually in flux. Thinks of the non-periodic motions in a lava lamp. Or a fishing bob stuck in the swirling turbulence at the base of a water fall. It wanders a little away from the falls but gets caught in a current that pulls it back; it’s caught in a loop but its motion isn’t periodic. Given enough time its as likely to escape as it is to remain. Life is motion within a flux; the flux of energy from the Sun. Shining Apollo is the love of my life. (Bless me Apollo. Stop by some time and I’ll give you a ride.)

So we’re lucky the early universe wasn’t perfectly homogeneous or isotropic. How lucky? Some researchers suggest that the universe is fine tuned. If the curvature of the universe was just slightly off in one direction, there wouldn’t have been enough gravitational clumping to produce the stars, galaxies and ultimately us. If the curvature off a little bit off in the other direction, the clumping would have been to quick and the universe would have collapsed before it got started. Some have taken this to be indicative of the hand of God. Others say that fine-tuning calculations are highly speculative; we know to little how to compute which value for a constant of nature or which universe is more probable than another. There is no experimental side to the study of possible universes and there is no universally accepted theory beyond what we currently have. Still others have pointed out fine-tuning calculations usually only move one tuning knob at a time (holding the others fixed) and do not consider how much easier it might be for the cosmos to “self-tune” if all the knobs turned. I agree with these objections.

We all know that the Earth rests within the warm flux of the Sun. Her biosphere bobs up and down in endless variations on the Sun’s luminous current of photons. She occupies one regime for a time and then another, evolving far from equilibrium and semi-stable plateaus of existence. We forget that the cosmos too is not in equilibrium. It is instead rapidly expanding. Someday our galaxies will be isolated from one another separated by insurmountable Rindler horizons. Matter will become diffuse and attenuated, or clump in remote far flung places unseen by other clumps. What will remain, if it exists at all, is the dark energy of Einstein’s modified equations. It’s density remains fixed and eternal. A black remnant of spent energies. A remembrance of good times. Its almost silent buzz the snore of a universe gone asleep.

Trish, your enthusiasm for the subject is expressed in language of elegance and intelligence. However, I think you also recognise that when cosmology and physics set aside the mathematics and the chemistry of the universe, the conceptual problems remain that enable people to insist or maybe just conjecture a, or the crucial formative role of 'God' -the most obvious question being: What existed before the big bang? Plenty of believers in world religions understand the concepts of gravity, black holes, sunspots, dark matter, and so on: but reach a blank page or a brick wall when language seems to run out explanations, and mathematics as it were, returns to zero. How does science describe the universe before the Big Bang?

May I refer you to:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

The first cause argument is either the universe started at the beginning of time and when there is no time there is nothing; or we create a god. The choice is yours. Which one is more far-fetched? If you choose god, then what caused him (or her)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Trish, your enthusiasm for the subject is expressed in language of elegance and intelligence. However, I think you also recognise that when cosmology and physics set aside the mathematics and the chemistry of the universe, the conceptual problems remain that enable people to insist or maybe just conjecture a, or the crucial formative role of 'God' -the most obvious question being: What existed before the big bang? Plenty of believers in world religions understand the concepts of gravity, black holes, sunspots, dark matter, and so on: but reach a blank page or a brick wall when language seems to run out explanations, and mathematics as it were, returns to zero. How does science describe the universe before the Big Bang?

---

There is no definite answer to the question, if it is a question, "What happened before the big bang?" because there is no definitive theory or confirmatory experiment.

Let's just take the classical equations of GR (nothing else) as solved by Friedman, Walker etc. for a homogeneous, isotropic universe. Those models describe a universe without a beginning. Time is like a open interval: at a certain instant you can say, "The universe has been expanding now for two seconds." Earlier you might have said, "The universe has been expanding now for 1 second." Earlier still you might have said, "The universe has been expanding now for 1/2 second." Still earlier, "The universe has been expanding now for 1/4 second." But at no time can you say, "The universe has been expanding now for 0 seconds," or "The universe just began expanding," or "The universe just came into existence now," because there is no time zero...there is no time outside the universe...no time before the universe...just like there is no space outside the universe and no matter outside the universe. The universe doesn't need a container to exist within, neither a container of space nor a container of time. I kind of like this model. But as I said, it's not definitive. There are others (though not the majority of cosmologists) who hold out for a "time before it all began."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin48

May I refer you to:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

The first cause argument is either the universe started at the beginning of time and when there is no time there is nothing; or we create a god. The choice is yours. Which one is more far-fetched? If you choose god, then what caused him (or her)?

---

Martin, thanks for the link, which both provides the explanation I was looking for, while failing to confirm that it is true - by which I mean absolutely true. As with the eloquent answer Trish supplied, these explanations are locked into a language which by its nature is not and never can be absolutely true. The key point (as I read it) that Hawking makes is this:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

The key concept which makes this argument vulnerable, is the idea of measurement, of the beginning of time -and indeed, time itself- as a measurable thing. In the 1930s Wittgenstein argued that language cannot describe anything absolutely, but that society agrees that the rules of grammar give what language is being used for its intelligibility, even if these rules, and words and meanings, are temporary:

But let's not forget that a word hasn't got a meaning given to it, as it were, by a power independent of us, so that there could be a scientific investigation into what the word really means. A word has the meaning someone has given to it. (Wittgenstein, 'The Blue Book', [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972: 28]).

In another discussion of time, Wittgenstein imagines logs floating down a river, and an observer noting when they bang into each other, and the way the observer appears to be measuring time to notice a difference in the frequency with which the logs bang into each other:

But if we say time passed more quickly between logs 1 and 100 than between logs 100 and 200, this is only an analogy; really nothing has passed more quickly. To say time passes more quickly, or that time flows, is to imagine something flowing. We then extend the simile and talk about the direction of time. When people talk of the direction of time, precisely the analogy of a river is before them. Of course a river can change its direction of flow, but one has a feeling of giddiness when one talks of time being reversed. The reason is that the notion of flowing, of something, and of the direction of the flow is embodied in our language.
http://tomclarkblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/wittgenstein-and-river-of-time.html

Could it be that one reason why Hawking cannot -or does not- speculate on life before the measurable beginning of the universe is because he doesn't have the language to describe a condition without time -or rather, there is no agreed language to describe it, and the point of disagreement is that whereas science 'understands' infinity as literally impossible to measure, religious believers insist that this is precisely the point of understanding God, but who themselves commit what for science is the heresy of not asking questions of God but of merely submitting their silence as proof of their belief?

But why does science find it hard, or impossible to describe something that is not measurable, perhaps beyond mathematics?

The paradox of language is that we agree that words can mean something that can be verified, and something that cannot be verified. Wittgenstein would argue that it is entirely possible for someone to describe as a memory something that 'happened tomorrow': I do not know what will happen tomorrow, but I can argue that I remember on the 1st April that I expected an event to happen on the 2nd April that happened, because I remember it -in reality, once they have passed, there is no difference between the 1st or 2nd of April, I am therefore able to argue, linguistically, that I was able to remember an event that 'took place' in 'the future'. I think this is crucial in religious belief where the belief in eternity is a necessary component of the spiritual comfort that believers seek: that life has meaning and has always had meaning, that we never 'really die' but just move on to another condition. I once had a genial argument about the existence of God with a Muslim (to be specific, an Ahmadi) and he said, as I recall it: 'there has to be a God, otherwise life would be meaningless, and that would be unbearable'.

Or as Borges put it:

Perhaps universal history is the history of the diverse intonation of a few metaphors.

Quote:

---

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

---

Idon't really see Hawking going with that form of argument. It seems to me he has given a number of theoretical arguments leading to the conclusion that the universe has a finite age and that time itself, being a constituent of the universe, cannot ...as it were...predate the universe. To say that "time existed before the universe but since we can't observe it" is an entirely different thing.

Penrose on the other hand conjectures a universe that is reborn periodically and each incarnation leaves traces in the CMB of the next.

It’s not that the infinite and the immeasurable are impossible to describe in mathematics.

Indeed, a major and well developed branch of mathematics known as set theory is devoted to the description of infinite cardinal and ordinal arithmetics. It includes countable infinities, uncountable infinities, inaccessible cardinals, Wooden cardinals and concepts pertaining to infinity whose contemplation would make Christ himself go cross-eyed.

Moreover, quantum theory is full of quantities that are immeasurable in principle.

The problem is nature herself and how we respect our own integrity when we endeavor to describe her. Do we fit nature to our most cherished beliefs? or our most ingenious ideas? or do we tailor our ideas to nature? Sure we can always carve out a niche for the gods. As long as the consequences of their shenanigans don’t conflict with observation or intrude upon the light of reasonably established knowledge, no scientist will pay them much in the way of professional attention (Tipler being a notable exception).

The classical cosmologies of Lemaitre, Friedman, Robertson and Walker are self-contained. For each of those models, time is internal...existing within the universe...not without. For these men, there was no time, nor space before the big bang.

Lemaitre took this to mean God existed timelessly and without extension. That He somehow is responsible for the existence of the universe, but that He didn’t create it by a process that took place in time...for that would require the prior existence of time.

Lamaitre’s idea a fine and noble, but baroque and unfunctional add-on to the cosmological understanding of those models. There is simply no need in science for hypothetical contortions that account for nothing. Whether or not they fill a “spiritual” need is not a public question. Whether or not they are metaphysically true, meet a higher truth etc. is not the business of science.

It is however, the business of every higher truth to be downward compatible with the lower levels of reasonably certain knowledge. When claimed scientific knowledge conflicts with claimed spiritual knowledge we have an epistemological problem that can only be settled by examining the scientific claim with the methods and ethics of science. Likewise when spiritual knowledge conflicts with the peaceful pursuit of life, freedom of belief etc., we have an even more serious problem. But when there are no conflicts, people can choose whatever higher knowledge meets their spiritual needs. Go hog wild.

i am god and you are nothing. Assume the position, or i will destroy you. Well, i can negotiate if you show some kind of appeasement gestures...
Yours,
god

http://0.tqn.com/d/humor/1/0/k/L/-/-/gods-child.jpg

i have written a book, between 26 and 19 hundred years ago, and if you don't follow it rigorously, despite its countless contradictions, i'll drown you all, you cockroaches...

i am god

and you are not...

What the hell are you people talking about?? Everybody knows that the Earth is a huge flat disc, set on the backs of 5 giant elephants, who are in turn standing on the back of a really huge turtle. All else is a hoax.