Science > Physics > Hanson - process metaphysics is basis of science - Wrong - day 3
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"wcb" |
| Date: |
13 Sep 2006 12:15:45 AM |
| Object: |
Hanson - process metaphysics is basis of science - Wrong - day 3 |
Gandy challenge - day 03 - Process metaphysics is basis of science?
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
There is not a single well known leading scientist that
can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all.
Show us a quote from any really famous physicists that
say that; "Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the
philosophy behind modern science."
Or admit you are wrong and had no idea what you were babbling
about when you posted you foolish and false claim!
SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM WELL KNOWN WORKING SCIENTISTS!
Put them here.
---------------->
I will post this challenge ever day until you comply, to show you are
a lying, stupid *****. Or until you admit you shot your intellectually
incompetent mouth off with having any reason to have made your foolish
claim and admit this was a gross error on your part.
What made you babble bizarre nonsense like this?
When did modern science and phsyics come to be based on
Whiteheads inane process metaphysics?
Show me one scientist that thinks this!
Support your bizarre claims!
You said Gribben and Feynman did for examples.
You never showed me cites proving your deeply stupid claims!
Everybody in AA is getting tired of your ad hominem attacks
and your grotesque woo-woo claims.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell - Vietnam Lies |
13 Sep 2006 12:27:09 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gf51pcjn3h361@corp.supernews.com...
On the peace movement during the vietnam war....
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12f6pbesv6ltr97@corp.supernews.com...
Basically, it was not the churches that did anything,
You're a liar as history shows.
http://encyclopedia.com/html/p/pacifism.asp
Motivations
One of the strongest motivations in the promotion of peace has been
religion, the objection to war being, in general, based on the belief that
the willful taking of human life is wrong. The Eastern religions, especially
Buddhism, decry war and advocate nonresistance. There has also been a strong
pacifistic element in Judaism and Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount, in
particular, contains a strong exhortation to peace. The church generally
voiced opposition to war as such (with the notable exception of the
Crusades); in the Middle Ages the truce of God was the outcome of
ecclesiastical attempts to halt private warfare. Some later sects-especially
the Anabaptists, Quakers, Moravians, Dukhobors, and Mennonites-have elevated
nonresistance to a doctrinal position.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project: Encyclopedia King formally
announced his opposition to the Vietnam War during the Ninth ... Addressing
a crowd of 3000 people in Riverside Church in New York City, ...
www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/vietnam.htm - 8k -
Cached - Similar pages
1965-1973: GI opposition the Vietnam War - Howard Zinn | libcom.org
Historian Howard Zinn on the opposition to the Vietnam War by American
soldiers. ... the military authorities by taking "sanctuary" in churches,
where, ...
libcom.org/library/soldiers-opposition-to-vietnam-war-zinn - 24k -
Cached - Similar pages
Left and Vietnam War Accommodating to church and liberal opposition to the
War amongst students and academics, commentary on foreign policy and Vietnam
from late 1965 gave ...
www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/leftvietnam.htm - 88k -
Cached - Similar pages
Conscientious Objection: Information From Answers.com Members of peace
churches who refused to fight or help build fortifications ... During the
Vietnam War, Selective Service denied exemption to conscientious ...
www.answers.com/topic/conscientious-objection - 43k - Cached - Similar
pages
[ More results from www.answers.com ]
H-Net Editors Directory - Mitchell K. Hall "CALCAV and Religious Opposition
to the Vietnam War," in Melvin Small and ... "A Withdrawal from Peace: The
Historical Response to War of the Church of God ...
www.h-net.org/people/editors/show.cgi?ID=124514 - 10k - Cached -
Similar pages
Legendary liberal WW Finlator fought segregation, poverty, war Finlator,
longtime pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, ... including
opposition to the Vietnam War, support for women's rights, ...
www.abpnews.com/1307.article - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker Movement ... Dorothy Day,
Prophet of Pacifism for the Catholic Church ... The influence of the
Catholic Worker during the Vietnam War is explored in detail in American ...
www.cjd.org/paper/pacifism.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
Roman Catholic Mary Moylan (Vietnam War resister) a nurse who in 1968
participated in the ... and corporate actions that awakened Catholic
opposition to the Vietnam War. ...
www.soulforce.org/article/95 - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
United Church of Christ News - John Thomas: 'A United Church
That ...
In the twentieth century our church gave formal support to
conscientious objectors, not just during the Vietnam conflict, but during
the Second World War as ...
news.ucc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=580&Itemid=56
- 42k - Cached - Similar pages
TIME.com: Speaking Out on Foreign Policy -- Jul 30, 1965 -- Page
1 Recently, a "Clergymen's Emergency Committee for Vietnam," representing
3000 ... A radical minority would commit the churches to total opposition to
war. ...
www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,834069,00.html -
Similar pages
HOLY OBEDIENCE: Corporate Discipline and Individual Leading
Friends were increasingly willing as the Vietnam War progressed to join with
a wide variety of church, pacifist and other antiwar groups in attempting to
....
www.hwcn.org/link/hmm/nl/archive/d1.htm - 27k - Cached -
Similar pages
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Gandy attemps to dodge his science/process metaphysics lies with furious lies |
13 Sep 2006 01:34:09 PM |
|
|
You cannot lie your way around this challenge.
And again, teh churches did not stand up against war.
Nixonwon re-election with 60% of the vote, thanks to
Christians, and the war went on. That lie of yiours
does not excuse your lie about science and process metaphysics.
You having fun, loser?
Gandy challenge - day 03 - Process metaphysics is basis of science?
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
There is not a single well known leading scientist that
can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all.
Show us a quote from any really famous physicists that
say that; "Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the
philosophy behind modern science."
Or admit you are wrong and had no idea what you were babbling
about when you posted you foolish and false claim!
SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM WELL KNOWN WORKING SCIENTISTS!
Put them here.
---------------->
I will post this challenge ever day until you comply, to show you are
a lying, stupid *****. Or until you admit you shot your intellectually
incompetent mouth off with having any reason to have made your foolish
claim and admit this was a gross error on your part.
What made you babble bizarre nonsense like this?
When did modern science and phsyics come to be based on
Whiteheads inane process metaphysics?
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell attemps to dodge his lies |
13 Sep 2006 01:52:18 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gggnsiuima8eb@corp.supernews.com...
In the end, no major religious denominations save the
usual Menonnites and Quakers came out against Vietnam.
That's a blatant lie.
Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker Movement ... Dorothy Day,
Prophet of Pacifism for the Catholic Church ... The influence of the
Catholic Worker during the Vietnam War is explored in detail in American ...
www.cjd.org/paper/pacifism.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
Roman Catholic The Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious
institution in the United ... and corporate actions that awakened Catholic
opposition to the Vietnam War. ...
www.soulforce.org/article/95 - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
Research Advisory Service - Doe/Moffitt Libraries ... Catholic Church's
Position on Vietnam War & Daniel Berrigan; Healthcare-Cuba ... African
Americans & Education; Catholic Opposition to Birth Control ...
www.lib.berkeley.edu/doemoff/ras_topics.html - 19k - Cached - Similar
pages
Crisis Magazine A noticeable feature of Catholic opposition to the war was
that, outside America ... The second, more radical view thought that the
Vietnam War had revealed ...
www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/feature2.htm - 32k - Cached -
Similar pages
US Christian Leaders Rally as Peacemakers "We're further along now than we
were in the Vietnam War. ... of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, hand-delivered a letter of opposition to ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1102-07.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar
pages
Chapter 16 To the Catholic Church, however, Vietnam was more than a mere
stepping stone in ... The Catholic communities reacted in turn. From passive
opposition they ...
www.reformation.org/chapter16.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
Legendary liberal WW Finlator fought segregation, poverty, war Finlator,
longtime pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, ... including
opposition to the Vietnam War, support for women's rights, ...
www.abpnews.com/1307.article - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam. Delivered by Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr April 1967 At Manhattan's Riverside Church ...
www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-13.htm - 37k - Cached - Similar
pages
First Baptist Church - History First Baptist declared its opposition to the
deportation of "refugees as long as persecution, torture and murder of
civilians continued." The church has ...
www.firstbaptistithaca.org/history.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages
Opposition to the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The executive
committee of World Council of Churches, an organization joined by churches
.... Opposition to US foreign policy · Opposition to the Vietnam War ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War - 63k - Cached -
Similar pages
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: gandys failed diversionary lies. Metaphysics claims still unanswered as Gandy lies. |
13 Sep 2006 03:21:43 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
That's a blatant lie.
No major religions drew the line with Nixon and the GOP
on the war.
Nixon won with 60% of the vote in his re-election,
the war went right on.
Christianity spoke - It said Nixon and war.
You lie, admit it.
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell's failed diversionary lies. |
13 Sep 2006 03:40:47 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggo27ep3ohf80@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Gandy lies about process theology critique - 6th time in one day! |
13 Sep 2006 05:49:36 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggo27ep3ohf80@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologysown journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist Barwell lies about process theology critique - 6th time in one day! |
13 Sep 2006 05:58:26 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gh2pcccu8s40e@corp.supernews.com...
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
I'm going to make it very easy for them to check your blatant lie, Barney
Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist Barwell lies about process theology critique - 6th time in one day! |
13 Sep 2006 08:42:49 PM |
|
|
Could you take your responses out of sci.physics please?
Thank you.
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, Hogwarts.physics
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:45088b86$0$29445$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
|
| "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
| news:12gh2pcccu8s40e@corp.supernews.com...
| >
| > Why are you lying here when people can easily check
|
| I'm going to make it very easy for them to check your blatant lie, Barney
|
|
| Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
| OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
|
| What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
| kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
| noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
| now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
| All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
| Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
| punctuated equilibrium.
|
| I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
| misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
| willing to go to spread his lies.
|
| Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
|
| http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
| Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
| by David Ray Griffin
|
|
| [excerpt]
|
|
| Summary
|
| The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
| temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
| arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that
this
| theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is
that
| this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time.
Combining
| the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity
physics
| rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
| seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
| and the world interact.
|
| But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
| implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is
to
| postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
| instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries
do
| not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous
influence
| is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
| which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
| physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
| affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
| physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
| about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
| open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
| God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
| suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Gandy lies about process theology critique - 9th time in one day! |
13 Sep 2006 07:52:17 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologysown journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell lies about process theology critique - 9th time in one day! |
13 Sep 2006 08:35:10 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gh2209l2toree@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
Yes. They can check and they'll find this....
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: General Relativity has a universe-wide " now ". |
14 Sep 2006 03:44:32 AM |
|
|
Hi Gandalf_Grey, General Relativity has a universe-wide " now ";
it's called " Cosmological Time ".
Time is the first spatial dimension because true randomness can't exist.
That means the universe Just_Is ( i.e. it never " happens " ).
Mass_Energy ( a.k.a. Cosmological Time ) is the fifth spatial dimension
( not finite, curled-up loops of QM observations, like string theory says ).
because the heat ( measured in joules ) of the observed universe
always goes down in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics.
Further, the SI kilogram could, in theory,
be defined as X ocsillations of a laser,
just as the first for spatial dimensions are now.
The number of observable spatial dimensions increases with larger scales and
greater a priori information, like this:
1. For an ideal vacuum ( i.e. a virtual " ground state " ),
time is the only spatial dimension ( e.g. time dilation ).
2. A photon travels along a null geodesic
heading in only one spatial dimension
( or two, if you include spatial-time as the first spatial dimension ).
3. Two dimensional ( or three, with spatial-time ) antennas and polarizers
work because light's magnetic field occupies
a two dimensional area as large as its wavelength.
4. The earth occupies a three dimensional block ( or 3, with spatial-time ).
5. Mass_Energy ( a.k.a. Cosmological Time ) is the fifth spatial dimension.
( e.g. the observed heat of the CMB )
As the universe eternally ignites ( and dissipates ),
Gibbs Free Energy eternally drops like this:
Dark energy ( a.k.a. negative pressure, at cosmic scales )
is observed to be a function of Density_Cosmos.
Because e = m * c^2, Omega_Total always equals 1,
Omega_Lambda always equals .74, and w always equals -1, we get:
Pressure_Cosmos always equals: - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Cosmos * c^2
( the positive pressure of radiation is insignificant ).
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/W.PNG
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity has a universe-wide " now ". |
14 Sep 2006 07:02:59 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Sep_14_Ytg3@Cotse.NET...
Time is the first spatial dimension because true randomness can't exist.
That means the universe Just_Is ( i.e. it never " happens " ).
Hahahaha.
You really do have no grasp of logic or deductive reasoning, do you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
