| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"David Thomson" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2005 02:16:18 PM |
| Object: |
Evidence for the Existence of God |
Lately there have been several people demanding of others proof for the
existence of a Creator God. Quoting from another poster to this
newsgroup, Einstein said, "Certain it is that a conviction, akin to
religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world
lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. The firm belief,
which is bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind revealing
himself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God,
which may, therefore be described in common parlance as `pantheistic'
(Spinoza)."
(FROM: Einstein, The World as I See It, London, 1955, p. 131.
Searching Google we see that Pantheism is the belief that God exists
within the world, being both the Creator and the created. So, if God
truly exists, we will see evidence of God in quantum physics, which is
the very foundation upon which physical existence evolved.
Physicists are smart. If such evidence were present, certainly Albert
Einstein and others who held Pantheistic beliefs would have found such
evidence. But what if certain facts weren't known during
Einstein's time? What if physics itself was founded with a couple
errors; minor, but significant?
Coulomb's constant and Newton's gravitational constant were known
to a fair degree of accuracy in Einstein's time. But the speed of
light, permittivity constant, and permittivity constant were not known
so accurately. Nor did physics ever discover the conductance constant
of free space and find its use. But had Einstein had access to these
accurate constants, he would have noticed the following relationship
involving Coulomb's constant:
k.C = c * Cd * u.0 / e.0
Where k.C is Coulomb's constant, c is the speed of light, Cd is the
conductance constant (2.112 x 10^-4 Siemens), u.0 is the permeability
constant, and e.0 is the permittivity constant. Einstein would then
have marveled at the construction of Coulomb's constant in terms of
other absolute constants. He might also have realized that if the
conductance constant were multiplied by the angular momentum of
subatomic particles that it would give a value expressed in dimensions
of distributed charge.
h * Cd = e.emax^2
where h is Planck's "quantum of action" constant, and e.emax^2 is
expressed in dimensions of coulombs squared. The value of e.emax^2 is
greater than that of e^2, where e is the elementary charge. This
simple observation would have led Einstein to the Unified Force Theory,
which he spent most of his later years trying to discover.
Had Planck's constant, the mass of the electron, the speed of light,
and the Compton wavelength been known with the accuracy we have today,
Planck's constant would have acted as the Rosetta stone, which would
have unlocked great mysteries in quantum physics. Today, Planck's
constant can be accurately expressed as:
h = m.e * w.C * c
where h is Planck's constant, m.e is the mass of the electron, w.C is
the Compton wavelength, and c is the speed of light. From the above
equality, we can postulate that the mass of an electron is a quantum
mass, the Compton wavelength is the quantum length, and the speed of
light is the quantum velocity. Dividing c by w.C, we can deduce the
result to be the quantum frequency.
c / w.C = F.q
where F.q is the quantum frequency.
"Quantum" is not necessarily the smallest piece of something, it is
the smallest whole piece, which remains stable. So the quantum length
and quantum frequency, if they are truly so, will be the length and
frequency used by God to measure and build the physical Universe. They
should be the rod and clock standards to which all existence is made.
We can do a simple test to see if these are indeed the quantum length
and frequency. We can factor all quantum constants by these quantum
measurements and we should see a precise construction of the constants
from them.
For example, let us take Coulomb's constant.
k.C = m.e * w.C^3 * F.q^2 / 16pi^2 * e.emax^2
In the above equality, Coulomb's constant is shown to be exactly
constructed from the mass of the electron, quantum length cubed,
quantum frequency squared, and strong charge of the electron (as shown
above).
We can do the same thing for Newton's gravitational constant.
G = w.C^3 * F.q^2/ m.a
Where G is the gravitational constant, and when G is factored by w.C^3
* F.q^2 then m.a is equal to 3.268 x 10^15 kg. This mass, when
thoroughly examined, is the mass associated with the Aether. This
mass, it turns out, is reciprocal mass. Just as time is linear, but
its reciprocal is a cycle, mass is linear, but its reciprocal is also a
cycle. And since mass is the dimension that when given a quantity
measures inertia, the mass associated with the Aether is inertia that
cycles between positive inertia and negative inertia. Thus, the net
mass when measured is zero. We see reciprocal mass in mechanical
devices, too. A steam engine piston cycles through positive inertia
followed by negative inertia. The net inertia of the piston after one
full cycle is zero. The same thing happens with the mass associated
with the Aether.
It turns out that this mass associated with the Aether is not just
floating around, isolated from other dimensions. This mass is part of
a massive Gforce, which gave rise to the Aether. This Gforce is also
the driver behind the three other forces of electrostatic force,
electromagnetic force (same as strong force), and gravitational force.
The so-called weak nuclear force is merely the proportion of
electrostatic force to electromagnetic force. This Gforce has the
quantum measurement structure of:
Gforce = m.a * w.C * F.q^2
Gforce = 1.210 x 10^44 newton
The Gforce is indeed a huge value. When we look at the gravitational
constant in terms of Gforce, we get:
G = Gforce * w.C^2 / m.a^2
The Newton gravitational constant is equal to the Gforce acting on a
quantum surface per quantum distributed Aether mass.
Just as the strong charge of the electron was found to be equal to the
angular momentum of the electron (Planck's constant) times the
conductance of the Aether, we can determine the strong charge
associated with the Aether in the same way:
e.a^2 = m.a * w.C * c * Cd
e.a^2 = 5.021 x 10^8 coul^2
And just as we expressed Coulomb's constant in terms of electron mass
and electron strong charge, we can do the same with the Aether mass and
strong charge:
k.C = m.a * w.C^3 * F.q^2 / 16pi^2 * e.a^2
Now if we use the same structure as the equation with the Newton
gravitational constant and Gforce, we would see how the Gforce produces
the Aether unit constant:
A.u = Gforce * w.C^2 / e.a^2
The Aether unit relates to Coulomb's constant as:
A.u = 16pi^2 * k.C
Just as the gravitational constant mediates the force between masses,
and the Coulomb constant mediates the force between electrostatic
charges, the Aether unit mediates the force between electromagnetic
(strong) charges.
Look close at the equations for the gravitational constant and Aether
unit constant. The equations are the same, except that gravitational
constant is Gforce acting on surface per distributed mass and the
Aether unit is equal to Gforce acting on surface per distributed
charge. And since there is only one quantum length and one quantum
frequency, and the angular momentum of the Aether or subatomic particle
is essentially set by its mass, then the strong charge associated with
any mass will always be directly proportional to the mass. This also
means that the strong force will always be directly proportional to the
gravitational force. This constant mass to strong charge ratio clearly
states that strong charge is caused by angular momentum moving through
the conductance of the Aether.
We can see from the above equation that Gforce acting upon surface per
strong charge is what causes the Aether unit. And if the dimensions of
the Aether unit are carefully examined, they are equal to the unit of
rotating magnetic field. So a quantum unit of Aether is a quantum
rotating magnetic field. By analyzing the Aether in terms of the
masses of the electron and proton, we can deduce the geometrical
structure of the Aether.
But what is important for now, is that the gravitational constant,
which is directly a result of Gforce, mediates the gravitational force
of all linear mass. Also, the Coulomb constant, which is a
substructure of the Aether unit, mediates the electrostatic force. And
of course, the strong force is mediated by the Aether unit, which is
directly manifested by the Gforce.
Modern physics does not recognize the strong charge of the electron,
nor does it recognize a strong force for the electron. And yet, the
Casimir equation is the same thing as the strong force equation for the
electron.
According to Hendrick Casimir, the Casimir equation is written as:
pi * h * c * A / 480 * L^4 = F
where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, A is the area
of the plates the force is acting upon, L is the distance between the
plates, and F is the resulting force. Who knows where Casimir got the
value of 480 from? In 1996, Stephen Lamoreaux measured the Casimir
force to within 5% of the predicted value. The numerical part of
Casimir's equation is suspect. We can see that the value of pi / 480
is 3.3% different from 16pi^2. Changing the pi / 480 term to 16pi^2
gets us closer to the measured value of the Casimir force. So by
taking the special case of the Casimir force where the area is equal to
the quantum length squared and the distance between the plates is also
equal to the quantum length, we can rewrite Casimir's expression as:
h * c * w.C^2 / 16pi^2 ^ w.C^4
Using the quantum measurements, we can devise a quantum unit of force
equal to:
forc = m.e * w.C * F.q^2
forc = .034 newton
So Casimir's equation can be written as:
h * c * w.C^2 / 16pi^2 ^ w.C^4 = 6.333 x 10^-3 forc
We can further modify the equation by replacing h * c / 16pi^2 with k.C
* e.emax^2 and simplify to:
k.C * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = 6.333 x 10^-3 forc
We can further replace the Coulomb constant with the Aether unit
constant and get:
A.u * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = forc
The last equation is the strong charge equation for the electron, which
calculates the strong force between electrons. So, despite the denials
of modern physics, the Casimir equation is, in fact, proof that the
electron does experience the strong force.
But most important, we see that all the forces are unified through a
single Gforce. And since the Gforce acts with the force of 1.210 x
10^44 newton of reciprocal force in each quantum of existence, and the
entire physical Universe is made up of nearly infinite quantum Aether
units, we could easily say that the Gforce is all powerful and all
pervading. We could also say that the Gforce creates space-time, and
thus creates the environment for subatomic particles, which are
themselves the beginning of physical matter. We could also say that
the Gforce is the one force that creates all the forces by acting on
different aspects of subatomic existence.
If God is described as being the Creator of the physical world, and is
said to be all powerful, all encompassing, and present in all creation,
the Gforce could certainly be called "God". And thus, we have
mathematical equations, based upon empirical data, that offer very
clear evidence that God did create the physical Universe and resides in
that creation even today. So for those of you who ask to see the
evidence of equations and empirical data that God created the physical,
you now have it.
To see more of this theory, visit www.16pi2.com
.
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
22 Aug 2005 05:24:24 AM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124565378.060001.129850@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Lately there have been several people demanding of others proof for the
existence of a Creator God.
The concept "God", like turtles upon turtles, may be seen as a feature of a
model which may be seen as the effectuation of absolutism.
In transferring it into another model it transforms. In a model based on
Qunatum Mechanics, where perhaps, especially with the benefit of my recent
work:
news:dc3o72$3et$2@reader01.news.esat.net... , we can agree that value is
neither absolute nor relative but relational (value, through relationship
'of forces'), then the concept "God" looses its categoricalist connotations;
it does not feature categoricalist right and wrong. Thereby, such a "god" is
nature friendly and has little to do with the Gods of, perhaps all, the
religions of which I am aware - and so much the better.
What remains should perhaps take a new name. I suggest "Effectuationism".
(Would that make me Mr. Effectuationism?)
Quoting from another poster to this
newsgroup, Einstein said, "Certain it is that a conviction, akin to
religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world
lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. The firm belief,
which is bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind revealing
himself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God,
which may, therefore be described in common parlance as `pantheistic'
(Spinoza)."
(FROM: Einstein, The World as I See It, London, 1955, p. 131.
Searching Google we see that Pantheism is the belief that God exists
within the world, being both the Creator and the created. So, if God
truly exists, we will see evidence of God in quantum physics, which is
the very foundation upon which physical existence evolved.
Physicists are smart. If such evidence were present, certainly Albert
Einstein and others who held Pantheistic beliefs would have found such
evidence. But what if certain facts weren't known during
Einstein's time? What if physics itself was founded with a couple
errors; minor, but significant?
Coulomb's constant and Newton's gravitational constant were known
to a fair degree of accuracy in Einstein's time. But the speed of
light, permittivity constant, and permittivity constant were not known
so accurately. Nor did physics ever discover the conductance constant
of free space and find its use. But had Einstein had access to these
accurate constants, he would have noticed the following relationship
involving Coulomb's constant:
k.C = c * Cd * u.0 / e.0
Where k.C is Coulomb's constant, c is the speed of light, Cd is the
conductance constant (2.112 x 10^-4 Siemens), u.0 is the permeability
constant, and e.0 is the permittivity constant. Einstein would then
have marveled at the construction of Coulomb's constant in terms of
other absolute constants. He might also have realized that if the
conductance constant were multiplied by the angular momentum of
subatomic particles that it would give a value expressed in dimensions
of distributed charge.
h * Cd = e.emax^2
where h is Planck's "quantum of action" constant, and e.emax^2 is
expressed in dimensions of coulombs squared. The value of e.emax^2 is
greater than that of e^2, where e is the elementary charge. This
simple observation would have led Einstein to the Unified Force Theory,
which he spent most of his later years trying to discover.
Had Planck's constant, the mass of the electron, the speed of light,
and the Compton wavelength been known with the accuracy we have today,
Planck's constant would have acted as the Rosetta stone, which would
have unlocked great mysteries in quantum physics. Today, Planck's
constant can be accurately expressed as:
h = m.e * w.C * c
where h is Planck's constant, m.e is the mass of the electron, w.C is
the Compton wavelength, and c is the speed of light. From the above
equality, we can postulate that the mass of an electron is a quantum
mass, the Compton wavelength is the quantum length, and the speed of
light is the quantum velocity. Dividing c by w.C, we can deduce the
result to be the quantum frequency.
c / w.C = F.q
where F.q is the quantum frequency.
"Quantum" is not necessarily the smallest piece of something, it is
the smallest whole piece, which remains stable. So the quantum length
and quantum frequency, if they are truly so, will be the length and
frequency used by God to measure and build the physical Universe. They
should be the rod and clock standards to which all existence is made.
We can do a simple test to see if these are indeed the quantum length
and frequency. We can factor all quantum constants by these quantum
measurements and we should see a precise construction of the constants
from them.
For example, let us take Coulomb's constant.
k.C = m.e * w.C^3 * F.q^2 / 16pi^2 * e.emax^2
In the above equality, Coulomb's constant is shown to be exactly
constructed from the mass of the electron, quantum length cubed,
quantum frequency squared, and strong charge of the electron (as shown
above).
We can do the same thing for Newton's gravitational constant.
G = w.C^3 * F.q^2/ m.a
Where G is the gravitational constant, and when G is factored by w.C^3
* F.q^2 then m.a is equal to 3.268 x 10^15 kg. This mass, when
thoroughly examined, is the mass associated with the Aether. This
mass, it turns out, is reciprocal mass. Just as time is linear, but
its reciprocal is a cycle, mass is linear, but its reciprocal is also a
cycle. And since mass is the dimension that when given a quantity
measures inertia, the mass associated with the Aether is inertia that
cycles between positive inertia and negative inertia. Thus, the net
mass when measured is zero. We see reciprocal mass in mechanical
devices, too. A steam engine piston cycles through positive inertia
followed by negative inertia. The net inertia of the piston after one
full cycle is zero. The same thing happens with the mass associated
with the Aether.
It turns out that this mass associated with the Aether is not just
floating around, isolated from other dimensions. This mass is part of
a massive Gforce, which gave rise to the Aether. This Gforce is also
the driver behind the three other forces of electrostatic force,
electromagnetic force (same as strong force), and gravitational force.
The so-called weak nuclear force is merely the proportion of
electrostatic force to electromagnetic force. This Gforce has the
quantum measurement structure of:
Gforce = m.a * w.C * F.q^2
Gforce = 1.210 x 10^44 newton
The Gforce is indeed a huge value. When we look at the gravitational
constant in terms of Gforce, we get:
G = Gforce * w.C^2 / m.a^2
The Newton gravitational constant is equal to the Gforce acting on a
quantum surface per quantum distributed Aether mass.
Just as the strong charge of the electron was found to be equal to the
angular momentum of the electron (Planck's constant) times the
conductance of the Aether, we can determine the strong charge
associated with the Aether in the same way:
e.a^2 = m.a * w.C * c * Cd
e.a^2 = 5.021 x 10^8 coul^2
And just as we expressed Coulomb's constant in terms of electron mass
and electron strong charge, we can do the same with the Aether mass and
strong charge:
k.C = m.a * w.C^3 * F.q^2 / 16pi^2 * e.a^2
Now if we use the same structure as the equation with the Newton
gravitational constant and Gforce, we would see how the Gforce produces
the Aether unit constant:
A.u = Gforce * w.C^2 / e.a^2
The Aether unit relates to Coulomb's constant as:
A.u = 16pi^2 * k.C
Just as the gravitational constant mediates the force between masses,
and the Coulomb constant mediates the force between electrostatic
charges, the Aether unit mediates the force between electromagnetic
(strong) charges.
Look close at the equations for the gravitational constant and Aether
unit constant. The equations are the same, except that gravitational
constant is Gforce acting on surface per distributed mass and the
Aether unit is equal to Gforce acting on surface per distributed
charge. And since there is only one quantum length and one quantum
frequency, and the angular momentum of the Aether or subatomic particle
is essentially set by its mass, then the strong charge associated with
any mass will always be directly proportional to the mass. This also
means that the strong force will always be directly proportional to the
gravitational force. This constant mass to strong charge ratio clearly
states that strong charge is caused by angular momentum moving through
the conductance of the Aether.
We can see from the above equation that Gforce acting upon surface per
strong charge is what causes the Aether unit. And if the dimensions of
the Aether unit are carefully examined, they are equal to the unit of
rotating magnetic field. So a quantum unit of Aether is a quantum
rotating magnetic field. By analyzing the Aether in terms of the
masses of the electron and proton, we can deduce the geometrical
structure of the Aether.
But what is important for now, is that the gravitational constant,
which is directly a result of Gforce, mediates the gravitational force
of all linear mass. Also, the Coulomb constant, which is a
substructure of the Aether unit, mediates the electrostatic force. And
of course, the strong force is mediated by the Aether unit, which is
directly manifested by the Gforce.
Modern physics does not recognize the strong charge of the electron,
nor does it recognize a strong force for the electron. And yet, the
Casimir equation is the same thing as the strong force equation for the
electron.
According to Hendrick Casimir, the Casimir equation is written as:
pi * h * c * A / 480 * L^4 = F
where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, A is the area
of the plates the force is acting upon, L is the distance between the
plates, and F is the resulting force. Who knows where Casimir got the
value of 480 from? In 1996, Stephen Lamoreaux measured the Casimir
force to within 5% of the predicted value. The numerical part of
Casimir's equation is suspect. We can see that the value of pi / 480
is 3.3% different from 16pi^2. Changing the pi / 480 term to 16pi^2
gets us closer to the measured value of the Casimir force. So by
taking the special case of the Casimir force where the area is equal to
the quantum length squared and the distance between the plates is also
equal to the quantum length, we can rewrite Casimir's expression as:
h * c * w.C^2 / 16pi^2 ^ w.C^4
Using the quantum measurements, we can devise a quantum unit of force
equal to:
forc = m.e * w.C * F.q^2
forc = .034 newton
So Casimir's equation can be written as:
h * c * w.C^2 / 16pi^2 ^ w.C^4 = 6.333 x 10^-3 forc
We can further modify the equation by replacing h * c / 16pi^2 with k.C
* e.emax^2 and simplify to:
k.C * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = 6.333 x 10^-3 forc
We can further replace the Coulomb constant with the Aether unit
constant and get:
A.u * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = forc
The last equation is the strong charge equation for the electron, which
calculates the strong force between electrons. So, despite the denials
of modern physics, the Casimir equation is, in fact, proof that the
electron does experience the strong force.
But most important, we see that all the forces are unified through a
single Gforce. And since the Gforce acts with the force of 1.210 x
10^44 newton of reciprocal force in each quantum of existence, and the
entire physical Universe is made up of nearly infinite quantum Aether
units, we could easily say that the Gforce is all powerful and all
pervading. We could also say that the Gforce creates space-time, and
thus creates the environment for subatomic particles, which are
themselves the beginning of physical matter. We could also say that
the Gforce is the one force that creates all the forces by acting on
different aspects of subatomic existence.
If God is described as being the Creator of the physical world, and is
said to be all powerful, all encompassing, and present in all creation,
the Gforce could certainly be called "God". And thus, we have
mathematical equations, based upon empirical data, that offer very
clear evidence that God did create the physical Universe and resides in
that creation even today. So for those of you who ask to see the
evidence of equations and empirical data that God created the physical,
you now have it.
To see more of this theory, visit www.16pi2.com
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
22 Aug 2005 12:50:44 PM |
|
|
looses -> loses
Stop quoting whole messages when they're not in use.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 04:27:00 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124565378.060001.129850@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
If God is described as being the Creator of the physical world, and is
said to be all powerful, all encompassing, and present in all creation,
the Gforce could certainly be called "God". And thus, we have
mathematical equations, based upon empirical data, that offer very
clear evidence that God did create the physical Universe and resides in
that creation even today. So for those of you who ask to see the
evidence of equations and empirical data that God created the physical,
you now have it.
Interesting, if somewhat fragile basis from which to define God. If you feel
God is Gravity then fine - you have proof God exists. If you feel God is a
supernatural being then, nope, you don't have any proof.
You may want to email George Hammond - I am sure you two could have hours of
fun discussing this.
If you feel you need proof to believe in God then you are not a believer
your are a sceptic like the rest of us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 05:21:05 PM |
|
|
Interesting, if somewhat fragile basis from which to define God. If you feel
God is Gravity then fine - you have proof God exists. If you feel God is a
supernatural being then, nope, you don't have any proof.
I guess I'm in luck, I don't believe God is a supernatural being.
You may want to email George Hammond - I am sure you two could have hours of
fun discussing this.
I could have hours of fun discussing it with many people, and I do.
We'll see if George picks up on this thread.
If you feel you need proof to believe in God then you are not a believer
your are a sceptic like the rest of us.
Absolutely right. I believed in God in my earlier years. Then, after
studying with dozens of churches, religious study groups, and living in
a Tibetan Buddhist community for a couple years, I realized I couldn't
believe in God. The things people believe God does is sickening. So I
gave up studying the world's religions and decided to study physics.
It was while studying physics that I finally found a meaningful view of
God. My life has been much better for it.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 05:36:35 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Absolutely right. I believed in God in my earlier years.
Then, after studying with dozens of churches, religious
study groups, and living in a Tibetan Buddhist community
for a couple years, I realized I couldn't believe in God.
The things people believe God does is sickening.
I'm surprised that in all your religious studies and discussions
nobody managed to answer that infantile "Why does God allow bad
things to happen?" question to your satisfaction when there are
so many sound reasons, although discussing these here would be
off-topic for sci.physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 03:29:35 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I'm surprised that in all your religious studies and discussions
nobody managed to answer that infantile "Why does God allow bad
things to happen?"
Can disease increase a species' fitness?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 06:03:35 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I'm surprised that in all your religious studies and discussions
nobody managed to answer that infantile "Why does God allow bad
things to happen?" question to your satisfaction when there are
so many sound reasons, although discussing these here would be
off-topic for sci.physics.
No more off-topic than a lot of other crap that gets discussed here. I
for one would be fascinated to see your "sound reasons". Watching
God-botherers wrestle with the problem of evil has been an amusing
diversion for me for many years.
Where shall we start? The Lisbon earthquake is always a good one: "It
was God's will that the Earth's crust should move in accordance with its
nature". Discuss.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
22 Aug 2005 07:46:21 PM |
|
|
Pyriform wrote:
john_ramsden@sagitta-ps.com wrote:
I'm surprised that in all your religious studies and discussions
nobody managed to answer that infantile "Why does God allow bad
things to happen?" question to your satisfaction when there are
so many sound reasons, although discussing these here would be
off-topic for sci.physics.
No more off-topic than a lot of other crap that gets discussed here. I
for one would be fascinated to see your "sound reasons". Watching
God-botherers wrestle with the problem of evil has been an amusing
diversion for me for many years.
Where shall we start? The Lisbon earthquake is always a good one: "It
was God's will that the Earth's crust should move in accordance with
its nature". Discuss.
Can't do it, can you?
I listened to a radio discussion today in which a group of similarly
feeble-minded God-apologists offered their collective wisdom on this
very subject. God allowed the Nazi regime to flourish for 12 years, we
were solemnly informed, and then put an end to it. Of course, if only
Man had exercised his free will, it could all have been over much
sooner. So there you have it; anything bad is Man's fault, but God will
always step in and put things right in the end, because He has a Plan,
which is of course beyond mere human understanding.
Sadly they didn't bring the same dazzling insights to bear on the
problem of Natural Disasters. But I'm sure it would have been a hoot.
Stendhal put it best: "God's only excuse is that he does not exist"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 06:24:08 PM |
|
|
Hi John,
I'm surprised that in all your religious studies and discussions
nobody managed to answer that infantile "Why does God allow bad
things to happen?" question to your satisfaction when there are
so many sound reasons, although discussing these here would be
off-topic for sci.physics.
I was looking for Truth, not excuses. Actually, when I was 15 I joined
a Southern Baptist youth group because I was so impressed with the
image of Jesus I was hearing. So I decided I wanted to be like Jesus.
Wondering where to start, I decided to read the Bible from cover to
cover. Over the next two years I asked some rather pointed questions
to the pastor, who kept telling me something about sheep and shephards,
and that my place had something to do with the sheep. It was when I
told him I was leaving for a cross country trip to visit my mother that
he told me, "Be careful of all other churches, even the Baptist
churches that aren't Southern Baptist, because they are all ruled by
Satan." That took the wind out of my sails and I resolved to study
every religion until I found the truth. Imagine my surprise when I
found the truth in science.
What I like about the presentation of Gforce is that anybody can verify
it for themselves. There are no tithes to be paid, no gurus to slap us
in the face, and no clergy to whip us with our guilt as sinners. Each
person can get to know God to the degree they are willing to
investigate the physics for themselves. I can now see God in
everything, just as clear as day.
The Aether Physics Model also shows how are emotions (measured by
conductance) interact with our environment, and how our environment
interacts with our emotions. It shows how the Princeton random number
experiment works with mass emotions.
The deeper one studies the Aether Physics Model, the deeper one
understands their relationship with their environment at all levels of
existence. Even our understanding of the various levels of existence
(subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, etc) become clearer.
It's a rush to be able to experience life simultaneously on multiple
levels.
Recently, I have been able to understand time on three different axes.
We are used to experiencing space as length, width, and depth (or
East-West, North South, Up-Down), but the dimensions of time offer an
even greater understanding of our environment. But this a bit more
advanced and requires understanding the APM.
You don't see me here promoting the theory much anymore. I just
decided to meet the challenge of those who repeatedly have been wanting
a mathematical proof of God. The result of this post was mostly
predictable. I expected niggardly Al would respond with "idiot", and
that Autumn would nit pick something. But I did not expect T Wake to
be so gentle. Just goes to show that life still has a few surprises.
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 09:08:11 PM |
|
|
I have proof!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 04:29:47 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124590091.890725.166170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I have proof!!!
Of what? Your ability to post without quotes and in meaningless sentences?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 11:57:55 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Lately there have been several people demanding of others proof for the
existence of a Creator God. Quoting from another poster to this
newsgroup, Einstein said, "Certain it is that a conviction, akin to
religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world
lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. The firm belief,
which is bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind revealing
himself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God,
which may, therefore be described in common parlance as `pantheistic'
(Spinoza)."
(FROM: Einstein, The World as I See It, London, 1955, p. 131.
Using Quantum Mechanics and the Many Worlds Interpretation, one deduces
that either:
1. An afterlife must exist.
2. If 1 is false, an observer is immortal.
This is as close to a "proof of God" that you're going to get.
An explanation can be provided only if legitamit interest is shown.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 10:00:54 AM |
|
|
1. Everything changes.
2. God does not.
3. Therefore, God is nothing.
That's mine.
-Aut
All constants are wrong; they're all parameters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 11:57:49 AM |
|
|
1. Everything changes.
2. God does not.
3. Therefore, God is nothing.
The mass of the electron never changes.
The mass of the proton never changes.
Coulomb's constant never changes.
Newton's gravitational constant never changes.
The speed of light in a vacuum never changes.
The permeability of the vacuum never changes.
The permittivity of the vacuum never changes.
The very foundation of physical existence never changes. All that ever
changes are the positions of the quantum particles.
Likewise, you could say that clay changes its form, but the physics of
clay remains the same.
God is the creator and the created. God never changes. The physics of
the creation never changes. All that does change is just illusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 02:23:28 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
The mass of the electron never changes.
The mass of the proton never changes.
They always change, by E = mcc in bound states and by M =
m/(1-vv/cc)^.5 in free states.
Coulomb's constant never changes.
Newton's gravitational constant never changes.
The speed of light in a vacuum never changes.
The permeability of the vacuum never changes.
The permittivity of the vacuum never changes.
All of these have been changing since the big bang. You are only
seeing a snapshot.
Conservative gravity is a failure:
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Agr-qc%2F9808081.
The very foundation of physical existence never changes. All that ever
changes are the positions of the quantum particles.
what foundation?
Likewise, you could say that clay changes its form, but the physics of
clay remains the same.
It doesn't remain either: Newtonian substances <-> nonNewtonian
substances. Chaos reigns.
God is the creator and the created. God never changes. The physics of
the creation never changes. All that does change is just illusion.
God is not the creator and the created. Stop equivocating God with
everything. There are no illusions: Everything looks exactly like what
it's supposed to: There are only delusions. BTW, the right
[Greek--understand it?] Latin English spelling for "physics" that the
deluded Roman Christians corrupted from is fusica (Latin Latin:
fusice). Since Latin doesn't distinguish between long and short
vowels, that still might be a problem for readers, so I will use my
spelling: fXsEcA.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 02:20:07 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
The mass of the electron never changes.
The mass of the proton never changes.
They always change, by E = mcc in bound states and by M =
m/(1-vv/cc)^.5 in free states.
Coulomb's constant never changes.
Newton's gravitational constant never changes.
The speed of light in a vacuum never changes.
The permeability of the vacuum never changes.
The permittivity of the vacuum never changes.
All of these have been changing since the big bang. You are only
seeing a snapshot.
Conservative gravity is a failure:
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Agr-qc%2F9808081.
The very foundation of physical existence never changes. All that ever
changes are the positions of the quantum particles.
what foundation?
Likewise, you could say that clay changes its form, but the physics of
clay remains the same.
It doesn't remain either: Newtonian substances <-> nonNewtonian
substances. Chaos reigns.
God is the creator and the created. God never changes. The physics of
the creation never changes. All that does change is just illusion.
God is not the creator and the created. Stop equivocating God with
everything. There are no illusions: Everything looks exactly like what
it's supposed to: There are only delusions. BTW, the right
[Greek--understand it?] Latin spelling for "physics" that the deluded
Roman Christians corrupted from is fusica. Since Latin doesn't
distinguish between long and short vowels, that still might be a
problem for readers, so I will use my spelling: fXsEcA.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 08:28:41 AM |
|
|
Using Quantum Mechanics and the Many Worlds Interpretation, one deduces
that either:
1. An afterlife must exist.
2. If 1 is false, an observer is immortal.
How do you define "afterlife?" Is there are "beforelife?"
If your definition of life includes being embodied, then life begins
with the beginning of the body and ends with the death of the body. If
your definition of life involves an eternal spirit, then there is no
beforelife or afterlife; life is a continuum.
Using logic, we can prove there is no afterlife. You just need to make
up your mind how you define life.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 09:41:48 AM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Using Quantum Mechanics and the Many Worlds Interpretation, one deduces
that either:
1. An afterlife must exist.
2. If 1 is false, an observer is immortal.
How do you define "afterlife?" Is there are "beforelife?"
If your definition of life includes being embodied, then life begins
with the beginning of the body and ends with the death of the body. If
your definition of life involves an eternal spirit, then there is no
beforelife or afterlife; life is a continuum.
Using logic, we can prove there is no afterlife. You just need to make
up your mind how you define life.
WARNING: NOT FOR THE WEAK-MINDED - JUST THEORY!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 05:13:48 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
[snip]
If God is described as being the Creator of the physical world, and is
said to be all powerful, all encompassing, and present in all creation,
the Gforce could certainly be called "God". And thus, we have
mathematical equations, based upon empirical data, that offer very
clear evidence that God did create the physical Universe and resides in
that creation even today. So for those of you who ask to see the
evidence of equations and empirical data that God created the physical,
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 04:59:25 PM |
|
|
See the extensive talks with and against Tom Lockyer to understand how
his and David Thomson's corrupt accounting practices have been used to
get their fraudulent and imagined structures and properties. See my
thread with him for a reference to an advancedphysics.org post
explaining how deriving respective properties from the Compton
wavelength is an ignorant fraud. See my talks with David Thomson deep
in the archives of http://egroups.com/group/free_energy to see how he
doesn't understand dimensional analusis (yes, the right spelling) or
how to keep nonassociative multivariate terms separate. He even
refuses to understand the difference between linear and rectangular
exponentiation, which is not helped by maths' terms being so vague not
to distinguish them in the semiotics. He refuses to acknowledge all
the scattering experiments finding that nucleons are lumpy, showing the
quarks that he and Tom are so prejudiced and hateful of (colorists!).
The reciprocal of time or whatever does not give a cycle; the cycle is
an optional interpretation.
The Casimir force exceeds gravity at small scales, but for ground
particles comparing it to the strong "force" is wrong and ridiculous.
Einstein was not a theist; he was a deist and antitheist.
Anyone wanting to see a chain of linked fundamental constants that are
not derived from munged electrical chimaira can see my "Planckian fun"
post: http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=1585.
Nothing has come out of Thomson's aether properties and nothing ever
will. No one has seen them and no one ever will. They are the a in
the above thread.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 05:27:44 PM |
|
|
Hi Autumn (yes, I spelled that right),
Everyone here is no doubt familiar with your arrogant ravings and
nonsensical pickiness, so I don't need to counter each of your nits
that you picked.
Nothing has come out of Thomson's aether properties and nothing ever
will. No one has seen them and no one ever will. They are the a in
the above thread.
My theory has presented the only mathematically correct Unified Force
Theory that unifies the so-called four forces. As a result of my three
years of work on this theory, I will be travelling to England next
month to meet with a PhD physicist from Cambridge who is, in his words,
"extremely interested" in the Aether Physics Model. I've seen your
other rantings about me in other posts, but I just don't have the time
for your pettiness.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 10:04:49 AM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Autumn (yes, I spelled that right),
No, you didn't. My /name/ is based on Latin English, not Greek Latin
English, so the correction doesn't apply.
Everyone here is no doubt familiar with your arrogant ravings and
nonsensical pickiness, so I don't need to counter each of your nits
that you picked.
None of it's nonsensical. You only need to say that you can't answer
them.
My theory has presented the only mathematically correct Unified Force
Theory that unifies the so-called four forces. As a result of my three
Read the discussions with Tom Lockyer. Maths can't prove or disprove a
damned thing that exists or not, only more maths. Read them or die.
And your work is full of fake maths.
years of work on this theory, I will be travelling to England next
month to meet with a PhD physicist from Cambridge who is, in his words,
"extremely interested" in the Aether Physics Model. I've seen your
Who is it? Has he a chance to review our early threads, or did you
suppress that knowledge from him?
other rantings about me in other posts, but I just don't have the time
for your pettiness.
Petty but true.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 12:01:27 PM |
|
|
Hi Autumn (yes, I spelled that right),
No, you didn't. My /name/ is based on Latin English, not Greek Latin
English, so the correction doesn't apply.
I happen to ascribe to Greek Latin English, so it does apply.
years of work on this theory, I will be travelling to England next
month to meet with a PhD physicist from Cambridge who is, in his words,
"extremely interested" in the Aether Physics Model. I've seen your
Who is it? Has he a chance to review our early threads, or did you
suppress that knowledge from him?
I suppressed that "knowledge" from him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
21 Aug 2005 02:11:36 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
I happen to ascribe to Greek Latin English, so it does apply.
Do you even know what ascribe means? Autumn does not come from Greek.
I suppressed that "knowledge" from him.
Who is it then? I must warn him.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
22 Aug 2005 02:37:11 AM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Autumn does not come from Greek.
The impertinent question is whether you go for it.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
22 Aug 2005 12:51:36 PM |
|
|
Bob Cain wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Autumn does not come from Greek.
The impertinent question is whether you go for it.
what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
22 Aug 2005 07:10:42 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Autumn does not come from Greek.
The impertinent question is whether you go for it.
what?
Greek. :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 05:21:42 PM |
|
|
Just go with pantheism. God and the Universe are identical. And it's
ruled by cybernetic principles. Then religion and science meld into
one. Just one. One. 1. 1 1 1 1 And the time will come when ewe
know we're all one and Life flows on within a ewe and without a ewe,
butt with a ewe is much better, and you idiots who call people names
and ruin a good dialectic over here - bite me, assholes. Butt there's
no dialectic to perform, for all is one and one is all and the
Universe is consistent and complete according to Godel leading the way
to infonet knowledge and ....and....and......I CANT TAKE IT DARLENE GO
GET THE SHOTGUT FROM OUT IN THE GARAGE I CANT TAKE ANDROCHEESE AND
ZICK-***** AND ALL THESE COLLEGE FUCKS WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO
TMSM,SLDFIFMFHDJBWLKWEIUWELKJNEWUOIEWQ,WEKUWEKUWEQIUEFWUIWQEIUEWRQIU1REWKUWE1KNDCWNIULE1IRQREURBICURI;UR1,DW;OIERIUQEWRLKE3F1K;RE;OIU
BLAM
I AM EATEN BY SHARKS.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
ADDRESS URINE ISSUES.
GET A LIFE - GO EXPERIENCE THE REAL WORLD, DROP OUT OF COLLEGE. BUY A
*****. CHOP WEEDS IN CORNFIELDS. DO SOMETHING USEFUL. GET AWAY FROM
THE MINDPOISENING BILL GATES WINDOW TO HELL URINE STARING AT.
JUST A MINUTE......
JUST A MINUTE.......
DAVE, THE AE35 ANTENNA POINTING EUNUCH IS GOING TO FAIL IN 72 HOURS.
YES, THAT'S A FIRM ESTIMATE..........
DAVE???????? HOW DID YOU SNEAK THAT AX ON BOARD?????? DAVE??? TAKE A
STRESS PILL, DAVE, BECOME A ZOMBIE LIKE ANDROCHEESE!!!!!!! NO DAVE NO
A NO D AHH!!!!!! A AMSJHDNDKJN2DEKJNLKWXS1LNWLKXWKW2XLKWXKXWLK
DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. BUY AN AX. OR A GALLON OF WATER WILL DO
THE JOB REAL GOOD TOO.
I LOVE YOU.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL GLOBAL BRAIN.
FONDLY,
DMS
THE NUT FARM
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "paranormal" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 02:42:51 PM |
|
|
Stephen Hawking ends his lectures mentioning GOD.
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> escribió en el mensaje
news:1124565378.060001.129850@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Lately there have been several people demanding of others proof for the
existence of a Creator God. Quoting from another poster to this
newsgroup, Einstein said, "Certain it is that a conviction, akin to
religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world
lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. The firm belief,
which is bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind revealing
himself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God,
which may, therefore be described in common parlance as `pantheistic'
(Spinoza)."
(FROM: Einstein, The World as I See It, London, 1955, p. 131.
Searching Google we see that Pantheism is the belief that God exists
within the world, being both the Creator and the created. So, if God
truly exists, we will see evidence of God in quantum physics, which is
the very foundation upon which physical existence evolved.
Physicists are smart. If such evidence were present, certainly Albert
Einstein and others who held Pantheistic beliefs would have found such
evidence. But what if certain facts weren't known during
Einstein's time? What if physics itself was founded with a couple
errors; minor, but significant?
Coulomb's constant and Newton's gravitational constant were known
to a fair degree of accuracy in Einstein's time. But the speed of
light, permittivity constant, and permittivity constant were not known
so accurately. Nor did physics ever discover the conductance constant
of free space and find its use. But had Einstein had access to these
accurate constants, he would have noticed the following relationship
involving Coulomb's constant:
k.C = c * Cd * u.0 / e.0
Where k.C is Coulomb's constant, c is the speed of light, Cd is the
conductance constant (2.112 x 10^-4 Siemens), u.0 is the permeability
constant, and e.0 is the permittivity constant. Einstein would then
have marveled at the construction of Coulomb's constant in terms of
other absolute constants. He might also have realized that if the
conductance constant were multiplied by the angular momentum of
subatomic particles that it would give a value expressed in dimensions
of distributed charge.
h * Cd = e.emax^2
where h is Planck's "quantum of action" constant, and e.emax^2 is
expressed in dimensions of coulombs squared. The value of e.emax^2 is
greater than that of e^2, where e is the elementary charge. This
simple observation would have led Einstein to the Unified Force Theory,
which he spent most of his later years trying to discover.
Had Planck's constant, the mass of the electron, the speed of light,
and the Compton wavelength been known with the accuracy we have today,
Planck's constant would have acted as the Rosetta stone, which would
have unlocked great mysteries in quantum physics. Today, Planck's
constant can be accurately expressed as:
h = m.e * w.C * c
where h is Planck's constant, m.e is the mass of the electron, w.C is
the Compton wavelength, and c is the speed of light. From the above
equality, we can postulate that the mass of an electron is a quantum
mass, the Compton wavelength is the quantum length, and the speed of
light is the quantum velocity. Dividing c by w.C, we can deduce the
result to be the quantum frequency.
c / w.C = F.q
where F.q is the quantum frequency.
"Quantum" is not necessarily the smallest piece of something, it is
the smallest whole piece, which remains stable. So the quantum length
and quantum frequency, if they are truly so, will be the length and
frequency used by God to measure and build the physical Universe. They
should be the rod and clock standards to which all existence is made.
We can do a simple test to see if these are indeed the quantum length
and frequency. We can factor all quantum constants by these quantum
measurements and we should see a precise construction of the constants
from them.
For example, let us take Coulomb's constant.
k.C = m.e * w.C^3 * F.q^2 / 16pi^2 * e.emax^2
In the above equality, Coulomb's constant is shown to be exactly
constructed from the mass of the electron, quantum length cubed,
quantum frequency squared, and strong charge of the electron (as shown
above).
We can do the same thing for Newton's gravitational constant.
G = w.C^3 * F.q^2/ m.a
Where G is the gravitational constant, and when G is factored by w.C^3
* F.q^2 then m.a is equal to 3.268 x 10^15 kg. This mass, when
thoroughly examined, is the mass associated with the Aether. This
mass, it turns out, is reciprocal mass. Just as time is linear, but
its reciprocal is a cycle, mass is linear, but its reciprocal is also a
cycle. And since mass is the dimension that when given a quantity
measures inertia, the mass associated with the Aether is inertia that
cycles between positive inertia and negative inertia. Thus, the net
mass when measured is zero. We see reciprocal mass in mechanical
devices, too. A steam engine piston cycles through positive inertia
followed by negative inertia. The net inertia of the piston after one
full cycle is zero. The same thing happens with the mass associated
with the Aether.
It turns out that this mass associated with the Aether is not just
floating around, isolated from other dimensions. This mass is part of
a massive Gforce, which gave rise to the Aether. This Gforce is also
the driver behind the three other forces of electrostatic force,
electromagnetic force (same as strong force), and gravitational force.
The so-called weak nuclear force is merely the proportion of
electrostatic force to electromagnetic force. This Gforce has the
quantum measurement structure of:
Gforce = m.a * w.C * F.q^2
Gforce = 1.210 x 10^44 newton
The Gforce is indeed a huge value. When we look at the gravitational
constant in terms of Gforce, we get:
G = Gforce * w.C^2 / m.a^2
The Newton gravitational constant is equal to the Gforce acting on a
quantum surface per quantum distributed Aether mass.
Just as the strong charge of the electron was found to be equal to the
angular momentum of the electron (Planck's constant) times the
conductance of the Aether, we can determine the strong charge
associated with the Aether in the same way:
e.a^2 = m.a * w.C * c * Cd
e.a^2 = 5.021 x 10^8 coul^2
And just as we expressed Coulomb's constant in terms of electron mass
and electron strong charge, we can do the same with the Aether mass and
strong charge:
k.C = m.a * w.C^3 * F.q^2 / 16pi^2 * e.a^2
Now if we use the same structure as the equation with the Newton
gravitational constant and Gforce, we would see how the Gforce produces
the Aether unit constant:
A.u = Gforce * w.C^2 / e.a^2
The Aether unit relates to Coulomb's constant as:
A.u = 16pi^2 * k.C
Just as the gravitational constant mediates the force between masses,
and the Coulomb constant mediates the force between electrostatic
charges, the Aether unit mediates the force between electromagnetic
(strong) charges.
Look close at the equations for the gravitational constant and Aether
unit constant. The equations are the same, except that gravitational
constant is Gforce acting on surface per distributed mass and the
Aether unit is equal to Gforce acting on surface per distributed
charge. And since there is only one quantum length and one quantum
frequency, and the angular momentum of the Aether or subatomic particle
is essentially set by its mass, then the strong charge associated with
any mass will always be directly proportional to the mass. This also
means that the strong force will always be directly proportional to the
gravitational force. This constant mass to strong charge ratio clearly
states that strong charge is caused by angular momentum moving through
the conductance of the Aether.
We can see from the above equation that Gforce acting upon surface per
strong charge is what causes the Aether unit. And if the dimensions of
the Aether unit are carefully examined, they are equal to the unit of
rotating magnetic field. So a quantum unit of Aether is a quantum
rotating magnetic field. By analyzing the Aether in terms of the
masses of the electron and proton, we can deduce the geometrical
structure of the Aether.
But what is important for now, is that the gravitational constant,
which is directly a result of Gforce, mediates the gravitational force
of all linear mass. Also, the Coulomb constant, which is a
substructure of the Aether unit, mediates the electrostatic force. And
of course, the strong force is mediated by the Aether unit, which is
directly manifested by the Gforce.
Modern physics does not recognize the strong charge of the electron,
nor does it recognize a strong force for the electron. And yet, the
Casimir equation is the same thing as the strong force equation for the
electron.
According to Hendrick Casimir, the Casimir equation is written as:
pi * h * c * A / 480 * L^4 = F
where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, A is the area
of the plates the force is acting upon, L is the distance between the
plates, and F is the resulting force. Who knows where Casimir got the
value of 480 from? In 1996, Stephen Lamoreaux measured the Casimir
force to within 5% of the predicted value. The numerical part of
Casimir's equation is suspect. We can see that the value of pi / 480
is 3.3% different from 16pi^2. Changing the pi / 480 term to 16pi^2
gets us closer to the measured value of the Casimir force. So by
taking the special case of the Casimir force where the area is equal to
the quantum length squared and the distance between the plates is also
equal to the quantum length, we can rewrite Casimir's expression as:
h * c * w.C^2 / 16pi^2 ^ w.C^4
Using the quantum measurements, we can devise a quantum unit of force
equal to:
forc = m.e * w.C * F.q^2
forc = .034 newton
So Casimir's equation can be written as:
h * c * w.C^2 / 16pi^2 ^ w.C^4 = 6.333 x 10^-3 forc
We can further modify the equation by replacing h * c / 16pi^2 with k.C
* e.emax^2 and simplify to:
k.C * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = 6.333 x 10^-3 forc
We can further replace the Coulomb constant with the Aether unit
constant and get:
A.u * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = forc
The last equation is the strong charge equation for the electron, which
calculates the strong force between electrons. So, despite the denials
of modern physics, the Casimir equation is, in fact, proof that the
electron does experience the strong force.
But most important, we see that all the forces are unified through a
single Gforce. And since the Gforce acts with the force of 1.210 x
10^44 newton of reciprocal force in each quantum of existence, and the
entire physical Universe is made up of nearly infinite quantum Aether
units, we could easily say that the Gforce is all powerful and all
pervading. We could also say that the Gforce creates space-time, and
thus creates the environment for subatomic particles, which are
themselves the beginning of physical matter. We could also say that
the Gforce is the one force that creates all the forces by acting on
different aspects of subatomic existence.
If God is described as being the Creator of the physical world, and is
said to be all powerful, all encompassing, and present in all creation,
the Gforce could certainly be called "God". And thus, we have
mathematical equations, based upon empirical data, that offer very
clear evidence that God did create the physical Universe and resides in
that creation even today. So for those of you who ask to see the
evidence of equations and empirical data that God created the physical,
you now have it.
To see more of this theory, visit www.16pi2.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
20 Aug 2005 05:27:21 PM |
|
|
You can ***** ,too.
*plonk*
Androcles.
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124565378.060001.129850@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Lately there have been several people demanding of others proof for
the
| existence of a Creator God. Quoting from another poster to this
| newsgroup, Einstein said, "Certain it is that a conviction, akin to
| religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world
| lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. The firm belief,
| which is bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind revealing
| himself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God,
| which may, therefore be described in common parlance as `pantheistic'
| (Spinoza)."
| (FROM: Einstein, The World as I See It, London, 1955, p. 131.
|
| Searching Google we see that Pantheism is the belief that God exists
| within the world, being both the Creator and the created. So, if God
| truly exists, we will see evidence of God in quantum physics, which is
| the very foundation upon which physical existence evolved.
|
| Physicists are smart. If such evidence were present, certainly Albert
| Einstein and others who held Pantheistic beliefs would have found such
| evidence. But what if certain facts weren't known during
| Einstein's time? What if physics itself was founded with a couple
| errors; minor, but significant?
|
| Coulomb's constant and Newton's gravitational constant were known
| to a fair degree of accuracy in Einstein's time. But the speed of
| light, permittivity constant, and permittivity constant were not known
| so accurately. Nor did physics ever discover the conductance constant
| of free space and find its use. But had Einstein had access to these
| accurate constants, he would have noticed the following relationship
| involving Coulomb's constant:
|
| k.C = c * Cd * u.0 / e.0
|
| Where k.C is Coulomb's constant, c is the speed of light, Cd is the
| conductance constant (2.112 x 10^-4 Siemens), u.0 is the permeability
| constant, and e.0 is the permittivity constant. Einstein would then
| have marveled at the construction of Coulomb's constant in terms of
| other absolute constants. He might also have realized that if the
| conductance constant were multiplied by the angular momentum of
| subatomic particles that it would give a value expressed in dimensions
| of distributed charge.
|
| h * Cd = e.emax^2
|
| where h is Planck's "quantum of action" constant, and e.emax^2 is
| expressed in dimensions of coulombs squared. The value of e.emax^2 is
| greater than that of e^2, where e is the elementary charge. This
| simple observation would have led Einstein to the Unified Force
Theory,
| which he spent most of his later years trying to discover.
|
| Had Planck's constant, the mass of the electron, the speed of light,
| and the Compton wavelength been known with the accuracy we have today,
| Planck's constant would have acted as the Rosetta stone, which would
| have unlocked great mysteries in quantum physics. Today, Planck's
| constant can be accurately expressed as:
|
| h = m.e * w.C * c
|
| where h is Planck's constant, m.e is the mass of the electron, w.C is
| the Compton wavelength, and c is the speed of light. From the above
| equality, we can postulate that the mass of an electron is a quantum
| mass, the Compton wavelength is the quantum length, and the speed of
| light is the quantum velocity. Dividing c by w.C, we can deduce the
| result to be the quantum frequency.
|
| c / w.C = F.q
|
| where F.q is the quantum frequency.
|
| "Quantum" is not necessarily the smallest piece of something, it is
| the smallest whole piece, which remains stable. So the quantum length
| and quantum frequency, if they are truly so, will be the length and
| frequency used by God to measure and build the physical Universe.
They
| should be the rod and clock standards to which all existence is made.
| We can do a simple test to see if these are indeed the quantum length
| and frequency. We can factor all quantum constants by these quantum
| measurements and we should see a precise construction of the constants
| from them.
|
| For example, let us take Coulomb's constant.
|
| k.C = m.e * w.C^3 * F.q^2 / 16pi^2 * e.emax^2
|
| In the above equality, Coulomb's constant is shown to be exactly
| constructed from the mass of the electron, quantum length cubed,
| quantum frequency squared, and strong charge of the electron (as shown
| above).
|
| We can do the same thing for Newton's gravitational constant.
|
| G = w.C^3 * F.q^2/ m.a
|
| Where G is the gravitational constant, and when G is factored by w.C^3
| * F.q^2 then m.a is equal to 3.268 x 10^15 kg. This mass, when
| thoroughly examined, is the mass associated with the Aether. This
| mass, it turns out, is reciprocal mass. Just as time is linear, but
| its reciprocal is a cycle, mass is linear, but its reciprocal is also
a
| cycle. And since mass is the dimension that when given a quantity
| measures inertia, the mass associated with the Aether is inertia that
| cycles between positive inertia and negative inertia. Thus, the net
| mass when measured is zero. We see reciprocal mass in mechanical
| devices, too. A steam engine piston cycles through positive inertia
| followed by negative inertia. The net inertia of the piston after one
| full cycle is zero. The same thing happens with the mass associated
| with the Aether.
|
| It turns out that this mass associated with the Aether is not just
| floating around, isolated from other dimensions. This mass is part of
| a massive Gforce, which gave rise to the Aether. This Gforce is also
| the driver behind the three other forces of electrostatic force,
| electromagnetic force (same as strong force), and gravitational force.
| The so-called weak nuclear force is merely the proportion of
| electrostatic force to electromagnetic force. This Gforce has the
| quantum measurement structure of:
|
| Gforce = m.a * w.C * F.q^2
| Gforce = 1.210 x 10^44 newton
|
| The Gforce is indeed a huge value. When we look at the gravitational
| constant in terms of Gforce, we get:
|
| G = Gforce * w.C^2 / m.a^2
|
| The Newton gravitational constant is equal to the Gforce acting on a
| quantum surface per quantum distributed Aether mass.
|
| Just as the strong charge of the electron was found to be equal to the
| angular momentum of the electron (Planck's constant) times the
| conductance of the Aether, we can determine the strong charge
| associated with the Aether in the same way:
|
| e.a^2 = m.a * w.C * c * Cd
| e.a^2 = 5.021 x 10^8 coul^2
|
| And just as we expressed Coulomb's constant in terms of electron mass
| and electron strong charge, we can do the same with the Aether mass
and
| strong charge:
|
| k.C = m.a * w.C^3 * F.q^2 / 16pi^2 * e.a^2
|
| Now if we use the same structure as the equation with the Newton
| gravitational constant and Gforce, we would see how the Gforce
produces
| the Aether unit constant:
|
| A.u = Gforce * w.C^2 / e.a^2
|
| The Aether unit relates to Coulomb's constant as:
|
| A.u = 16pi^2 * k.C
|
| Just as the gravitational constant mediates the force between masses,
| and the Coulomb constant mediates the force between electrostatic
| charges, the Aether unit mediates the force between electromagnetic
| (strong) charges.
|
| Look close at the equations for the gravitational constant and Aether
| unit constant. The equations are the same, except that gravitational
| constant is Gforce acting on surface per distributed mass and the
| Aether unit is equal to Gforce acting on surface per distributed
| charge. And since there is only one quantum length and one quantum
| frequency, and the angular momentum of the Aether or subatomic
particle
| is essentially set by its mass, then the strong charge associated with
| any mass will always be directly proportional to the mass. This also
| means that the strong force will always be directly proportional to
the
| gravitational force. This constant mass to strong charge ratio
clearly
| states that strong charge is caused by angular momentum moving through
| the conductance of the Aether.
|
| We can see from the above equation that Gforce acting upon surface per
| strong charge is what causes the Aether unit. And if the dimensions
of
| the Aether unit are carefully examined, they are equal to the unit of
| rotating magnetic field. So a quantum unit of Aether is a quantum
| rotating magnetic field. By analyzing the Aether in terms of the
| masses of the electron and proton, we can deduce the geometrical
| structure of the Aether.
|
| But what is important for now, is that the gravitational constant,
| which is directly a result of Gforce, mediates the gravitational force
| of all linear mass. Also, the Coulomb constant, which is a
| substructure of the Aether unit, mediates the electrostatic force.
And
| of course, the strong force is mediated by the Aether unit, which is
| directly manifested by the Gforce.
|
| Modern physics does not recognize the strong charge of the electron,
| nor does it recognize a strong force for the electron. And yet, the
| Casimir equation is the same thing as the strong force equation for
the
| electron.
|
| According to Hendrick Casimir, the Casimir equation is written as:
|
| pi * h * c * A / 480 * L^4 = F
|
| where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, A is the area
| of the plates the force is acting upon, L is the distance between the
| plates, and F is the resulting force. Who knows where Casimir got the
| value of 480 from? In 1996, Stephen Lamoreaux measured the Casimir
| force to within 5% of the predicted value. The numerical part of
| Casimir's equation is suspect. We can see that the value of pi / 480
| is 3.3% different from 16pi^2. Changing the pi / 480 term to 16pi^2
| gets us closer to the measured value of the Casimir force. So by
| taking the special case of the Casimir force where the area is equal
to
| the quantum length squared and the distance between the plates is also
| equal to the quantum length, we can rewrite Casimir's expression as:
|
| h * c * w.C^2 / 16pi^2 ^ w.C^4
|
| Using the quantum measurements, we can devise a quantum unit of force
| equal to:
|
| forc = m.e * w.C * F.q^2
| forc = .034 newton
|
| So Casimir's equation can be written as:
|
| h * c * w.C^2 / 16pi^2 ^ w.C^4 = 6.333 x 10^-3 forc
|
| We can further modify the equation by replacing h * c / 16pi^2 with
k.C
| * e.emax^2 and simplify to:
|
| k.C * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = 6.333 x 10^-3 forc
|
| We can further replace the Coulomb constant with the Aether unit
| constant and get:
|
| A.u * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = forc
|
| The last equation is the strong charge equation for the electron,
which
| calculates the strong force between electrons. So, despite the
denials
| of modern physics, the Casimir equation is, in fact, proof that the
| electron does experience the strong force.
|
| But most important, we see that all the forces are unified through a
| single Gforce. And since the Gforce acts with the force of 1.210 x
| 10^44 newton of reciprocal force in each quantum of existence, and the
| entire physical Universe is made up of nearly infinite quantum Aether
| units, we could easily say that the Gforce is all powerful and all
| pervading. We could also say that the Gforce creates space-time, and
| thus creates the environment for subatomic particles, which are
| themselves the beginning of physical matter. We could also say that
| the Gforce is the one force that creates all the forces by acting on
| different aspects of subatomic existence.
|
| If God is described as being the Creator of the physical world, and is
| said to be all powerful, all encompassing, and present in all
creation,
| the Gforce could certainly be called "God". And thus, we have
| mathematical equations, based upon empirical data, that offer very
| clear evidence that God did create the physical Universe and resides
in
| that creation even today. So for those of you who ask to see the
| evidence of equations and empirical data that God created the
physical,
| you now have it.
|
| To see more of this theory, visit www.16pi2.com
|
.
|
|
|
|
