What's wrong with a Belief in God?

Kchoo

At Peace.
There is literally no rule that says we can not phase through an object,



In fact, In the case of superfluids, it can and does happen, Here is an article about Superfluids tunneling through a glass container, I believe it was helium with a glass container, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms This article is on scholarly is it cited by 6173 physicists.

And here is helium as a superfluid climbing out of its container by running up the sides and leaking through the solid glass. Absolute zero viscosity.



Anyway, The point is, What we consider a Solid matter is really just a perception, Atoms don't actually touch one another their electrons repulse one another. Why Physics Says You Can Never Actually Touch Anything there is a very fine electromagnetic field repulsing between atoms that will not allow them to ever really touch, even at incredible densities.

So, In superfluids case, Quantum tunneling is really just allowing the mass of one object to pass between the atoms of the other because atoms never touch anyway.

Except we dont, because our atoms dont slip through most things... our bodies displace things like water and air... but our bodies dont slip through walls... or the floor... like most dare devil kids, my stunts didnt always work... I fell a few times, and I wished the ground at least was bouncier, but at least I didnt fall through it. Whew!
 

nivek

As Above So Below
I am just glad I dont get absorbed by Earth's surface...
o_O

Nope that won't happen but we all leave bits of ourselves everywhere we go...

...
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
So are the ideas of a multiverse and a holographic universe mutually exclusive?

Not necessarily, The water is getting Deep as this point. The idea is, If the universe is projected on to a horizon, Well it's a horizon, consider what a projection is. it's only at this very fine horizon like point the gravitational focus would really exist, like an event horizon of a black hole, I suppose, Therefore, The universe or its shape, Is basically this flat area that manifests at this gravitational horizon, and simply doesn't exist out of its margins of focus. So flat in principal.

Now if the universe is flat, Then is it also infinite right? that is the going theory, Flat universe equals one infinite cosmos, and with this cosmos being infinite, Then there is no multiverse because this universe is literally everything there is.

but if the universe was closed, Or Bubble shaped it would mean the universe is finite. meaning it is not infinite and therefore, there may other universes. hence multiverse theory.

Now the deal is, What does it mean When a portion of gravity amasses this physical matter because of it's unique relation to the electromagnetic force? is that 2 dimensional? or since it's projected on to a 3-dimensional surface, is it then three dimensional itself, Or, A projection, onto another Object. Therefore, Flat universe. Flat universe equals infinite, infinite cosmos equals no multiverse.

I am not perfect in my physics, but I believe this to be accurate.
 

Sheltie

Fratty and out of touch.
I suppose, Therefore, The universe or its shape, Is basically this flat area that manifests at this gravitational horizon, and simply doesn't exist out of its margins of focus. So flat in principal.

Now if the universe is flat, Then is it also infinite right? that is the going theory, Flat universe equals one infinite cosmos, and with this cosmos being infinite, Then there is no multiverse because this universe is literally everything there is.

but if the universe was closed, Or Bubble shaped it would mean the universe is finite. meaning it is not infinite and therefore, there may other universes. hence multiverse theory.

Now the deal is, What does it mean When a portion of gravity amasses this physical matter because of it's unique relation to the electromagnetic force? is that 2 dimensional? or since it's projected on to a 3-dimensional surface, is it then three dimensional itself, Or, A projection, onto another Object. Therefore, Flat universe. Flat universe equals infinite, infinite cosmos equals no multiverse.

I am not perfect in my physics, but I believe this to be accurate.

But the idea of a flat universe also makes me think of Brian Greene's Elegant Universe when he posits a multiverse on many flat membranes, like a loaf of sliced bread.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
But the idea of a flat universe also makes me think of Brian Greene's Elegant Universe when he posits a multiverse on many flat membranes, like a loaf of sliced bread.
That reminds me very much of string theory, I'm a huge fan of brane theory,
Brane - Wikipedia I believe these membranes are Higher dimensions, Not to be confused or crossed with other universes, another universe would be a separate reality an entirely different cosmos than our own, It would have its own dimensions or its own membranes and this is why the distinction between dimensions and other universes is necessary. because another dimension doesn't necessarily mean a different universe. If that makes sense. :)

@nivek, I know this off topic science must be driving people insane, Can you move these science-oriented posts to a thread in The Science forums named Holographic Universe Theory?
 

Sheltie

Fratty and out of touch.
You're right. I forgot that brane theory and M-theory are about dimensions, not universes. pumpkin1
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
You're right. I forgot that brane theory and M-theory are about dimensions, not universes. pumpkin1
I wouldn't sweat that brother, We are speaking about some pretty high-level concepts here, The fact that we can understand any of this is a blessing, some people just do not get these kinds of things, I love science I love being able to understand it. :)
 

Kchoo

At Peace.
I liked physical science, chemistry, and electronics.... but this theoretical science is... ummm... interesting?

I am just not sure if it will yeild much other than being brain candy for geeks.
 

Area201

cold fusion
From my studies, "belief" in God is first step, "faith" in God comes from "experience" (knowing) of God or having some experience that gives you that "faith."

These are major differences like reading a manual to fly a plane (belief) and going out and flying a plane, etc.

Now what that "experience" exactly is of God may vary in degrees and manner from person to person.

Belief can be a good starting point to go further only. Belief in God is bad in the sense it may create often self-delusion of equating with knowing and stops anyone from going further. This extends to believing you are "saved" - it may be comforting to think so, even if it's just telling yourself that. In the process you fail to be saved.

Cosmic Plot Twist: God is You.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Thank you it's lively here saw a link on Instagram b4 I quit. No more social media 4 me thanks but might just stick around here a while

Hello and Welcome to AE...q37

...
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
I liked physical science, chemistry, and electronics.... but this theoretical science is... ummm... interesting?

I am just not sure if it will yeild much other than being brain candy for geeks.
While that's a pragmatic stance it's very prudent, Science comes in stages, Hypothesis, Theory, And Fact. I think you are assessing what a Hypothesis is. A theory is a stage in which Science can be experimented with, There are data and values and experimentation and theses, You can trust, If a hypothesis, Makes it to the theoretical stage in scientific study, It's worth paying attention too.

In science when something is legitimately called a theory, That means it has enough traction and data to construct a working thesis, it's worth consideration imo, On the flip side of all of this, None of this says anything about a person's personal interest in science or the subjects within they are drawn too.

Everyone is different, They are drawn to different aspects, I'm just pointing out, That If a scientist calls something a legitimate theory it doesn't mean an Idea or a thought, or opinion, It means "They have a thesis attempting to prove this claim" What I'm saying brother is, Before Stephen Hawking could get String hypothesis to legitimately be string theory, he had to come up with a working mathematical model that explained it fully in detail to a panel of his peers.

So, Theories are much more robust and detailed than an Idea. It's an attempt to explain something, to prove something.
 
Last edited:

pepe

Celestial
When we overcome “present” challenges, the "future" will be better.

Our present challenge is to overcome what nature has installed as our default. Taking away our need to identify as different is against our grain.

Is a bit of a coincidence that we become self aware and our success lays in awareness of unity.

The future will always be brighter and our past a lesson to ensure so.

We are prefects.
 

pepe

Celestial
You see, I see nature as a movement forward in one direction and we have to unpick it in the opposite direction.

When things go in a straight line, we see it as a natural occurrence . When it goes back on itself it is designed to do so. Can't think of any other natural event where this has taken place.

We are it.
 

Kchoo

At Peace.
While that's a pragmatic stance it's very prudent, Science comes in stages, Hypothesis, Theory, And Fact. I think you are assessing what a Hypothesis is. A theory is a stage in which Science can be experimented with, There are data and values and experimentation and theses, You can trust, If a hypothesis, Makes it to the theoretical stage in scientific study, It's worth paying attention too.

In science when something is legitimately called a theory, That means it has enough traction and data to construct a working thesis, it's worth consideration imo, On the flip side of all of this, None of this says anything about a person's personal interest in science or the subjects within they are drawn too.

Everyone is different, They are drawn to different aspects, I'm just pointing out, That If a scientist calls something a legitimate theory it doesn't mean an Idea or a thought, or opinion, It means "They have a thesis attempting to prove this claim" What I'm saying brother is, Before Stephen Hawking could get String hypothesis to legitimately be string theory, he had to come up with a working mathematical model that explained it fully in detail to a panel of his peers.

So, Theories are much more robust and detailed than an Idea. It's an attempt to explain something, to prove something.

CORRECT, theory is an accepted thought based on repeated observable outcomes... BUT... Theoretical physics is not proven physics, it is an idea being confirmed as a good idea and more people try to figure out how, and if, it fits something more pragmatic and prudent.

Now, bringing that back to the God thing, Theoretical physics can be a religion to some... their deity is the ‘lure of knowing’. To know all is to be all... to be God Like is to partake of the tree of life and the forbidden fruit is just the desire to know... to be more than just flesh and bone, but to have bitten off part of the philosophers stone, to become aware of more than the 5 senses...

The sudden appearance of man I wrote about earlier is the ability to discern that ‘I am not enough... I must find out what is out there, then maybe I will be enough...’

Pepe is right, we are it.
 
Last edited:

pepe

Celestial
You see, I see nature as a movement forward in one direction and we have to unpick it in the opposite direction.

When things go in a straight line, we see it as a natural occurrence . When it goes back on itself it is designed to do so. Can't think of any other natural event where this has taken place.

We are it.

A healing wound is the nearest comparison. Equally marvelous.

We are on the mend.
 
Top