The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[trish]

As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills. But that's because I have an IQ that is genius-level (according to the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who conducted my IQ tests).

If directly saying so counts as indicating, then yes, you have...good thing too... 'cause nobody noticed.

[Jamie Michelle]

If directly saying so counts as indicating, then yes, you have...good thing too... 'cause nobody noticed.

You wouldn't be able to notice, Trish, since your writing skills are horrendous, as this very post by you demonstrates. But yes, many people have noticed my superlative writings skills. Indeed, that's how I began writing articles, as people noticed my writing skills and depth of knowledge on forums I posted to and I was asked to write articles on politics and religion.

[trish]

You mean, forums to which you posted...right? And back to my previous question: does one commit typos or make typos? Just honest questions now, don't get all Wile E. Coyote super-genius on me.

[Jamie Michelle]

You mean, forums to which you posted...right? And back to my previous question: does one commit typos or make typos? Just honest questions now, don't get all Wile E. Coyote super-genius on me.

Those are synonymous statements, Trish. Nor did you go "back to [your] previous question", but instead you asked a different question.

[loveboof]

There's a difference between making a typo and doing what you do. I have looked over your posting history and your grammar is consistently horrendous. This explains why you wrongly thought I made a mistake on grammar in the example that you gave, since you don't actually know what good grammar is.

As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills. But that's because I have an IQ that is genius-level (according to the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who conducted my IQ tests). That doesn't mean I never make mistakes in writing, but it does mean that my writing level is exceedingly high.

You are the one who has claimed to be grammatically brilliant. I have never made such a claim for myself, so it is simple deflection for you to still be ignoring the inevitable conclusion of your own self-aggrandisement, arrogance and delusion. Not that I am particularly surprised that you can ignore facts & logic in favour of your own bullshit.

As it happens, on Internet forums I engage in a very informal conversational style of writing. In this scenario grammar is less important than conveying intonation and emphasis properly - which is ironically what grammar is supposed to do in the first place!

[trish]

So you are of the school who believe it is now grammatical to end a sentence or clause with a preposition? And you believe making a mistake is the same as committing one? There are learned people on both sides of these issues. Just wanted to know where a genius would stand. So thank you. By the way, my previous question was
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=130

[broncofan]

As a lot of people have said over the years, people who quote their iq scores are very boring. Was not the Stanford Binet IQ test originally designed to identify learning disorders and not to boost people's egos and make them think it was a replacement for real engagement in the world? You hear the same thing from Mensans even though there are literally dozens of tests you can take to qualify for the organization. I've always thought that IQ was a bit like athleticism. Once you have a requisite level you can start to put it to work. Some people have limits and no doubt some people have unusual talents, but great talent can always be squandered and there are numerous examples of people who were told they are not talented who went on to accomplish great things.

University of Texas at Austin is a good university and I don't know for what purpose they administered an IQ test on you Jamie, but I'm sure it wasn't so you could quote it to impress people in a debate.

[joeninety]

Those are synonymous statements, Trish. Nor did you go "back to [your] previous question", but instead you asked a different question.

Two nonsensical words for you Jamie "Ya Muppet" should probably also add you come across as a textbook narcissist with your grandiose delusions

[Jamie Michelle]

I just love this guy Jamie... the most fruitcake character in the whole of hung angels. The manic energy he devotes to his insanity is terrific and the intensity of his abuse sublime. God bless you Jamie

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, there exists no rational reason to think that the Omega Point cosmology is wrong and every rational reason to think that it is right. 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].)

For the details on that, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 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

Regarding your other comments, they are the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack, as well as being factually erroneous.

----------

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.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.) http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs , http://flashmirrors.com/files/kfxn99...omputation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C. http://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0xicxa...ium-of-God.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R. http://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0kwtgp...int-Theory.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X. http://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1uim5b...-Principle.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz , http://flashmirrors.com/files/wschm7...s-eschaton.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T. http://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/zfu3hb...-inflation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/tb8kpb...-foliation.pdf

* 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, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O Full proceedings volume: http://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS , http://flashmirrors.com/files/h7lkzd...en-Society.pdf

* 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, No. 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB , http://flashmirrors.com/files/mhaali...t-horizons.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 J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

* 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, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. 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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-93. http://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp , http://flashmirrors.com/files/09x8nr...ingularity.pdf

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 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 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. 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 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.

-----

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.

[Jamie Michelle]

So you are of the school who believe it is now grammatical to end a sentence or clause with a preposition? And you believe making a mistake is the same as committing one? There are learned people on both sides of these issues. Just wanted to know where a genius would stand. So thank you. By the way, my previous question was
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=130

That was your previous post in this thread. Your previous question was "You mean, forums to which you posted...right?" See http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=136 .