• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

James Redford said:
For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is.....
Click to expand...

The meaning of life has been known for over 30 years. The answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe and Everything is 42.
 
My article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", published at the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), has been ameliorated on April 9, 2012. The updated links to it are in the following.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 185 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs
 
Could you tell us if you have any peer reviewed papers of your own, and not Tipler's? When I say 'peer review' I obviously mean by real scientists...

Could you tell us why your theory shows there is a god and a conscious universe, even if the theoretical side is accurate scientifically?

I ask because I've read your text and it doesn't even begin to answer that, it's self-referential and simply says that it's 'god' because you say it is.

In every forum where you've met knowledgeable opposition you've immediately resorted to insults and accusing the poster of not knowing his or her stuff.

Don't you think you're a bit old for trying to get work accepted via the internet rather than through real science and research?
 
James Redford said:
My article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", published at the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), has been ameliorated on April 9, 2012. The updated links to it are in the following.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 185 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs
Click to expand...


ABSTRACT: Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) published in leading physics journals by professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler, which demonstrates that in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point.
Click to expand...

Humm...
 
Norm!! said:
Could you tell us if you have any peer reviewed papers of your own, and not Tipler's? When I say 'peer review' I obviously mean by real scientists...

Could you tell us why your theory shows there is a god and a conscious universe, even if the theoretical side is accurate scientifically?

I ask because I've read your text and it doesn't even begin to answer that, it's self-referential and simply says that it's 'god' because you say it is.

In every forum where you've met knowledgeable opposition you've immediately resorted to insults and accusing the poster of not knowing his or her stuff.

Don't you think you're a bit old for trying to get work accepted via the internet rather than through real science and research?
Click to expand...

Welcome to JREF!

ETA just noticed your join date so congratulations on your first post.
 
Norm!! said:
Could you tell us if you have any peer reviewed papers of your own, and not Tipler's? When I say 'peer review' I obviously mean by real scientists...

Could you tell us why your theory shows there is a god and a conscious universe, even if the theoretical side is accurate scientifically?

I ask because I've read your text and it doesn't even begin to answer that, it's self-referential and simply says that it's 'god' because you say it is.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that you've actually read my below article, since you demonstrate here no knowledge of its contents.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs

But to answer your above question, because the Omega Point meets all the haecceities of God in the traditional religions. So by definition it is God. For more on this, see the Glossary entry "haecceity" and Sec. 7.1: "The Haecceities of God" of my above article.

In every forum where you've met knowledgeable opposition you've immediately resorted to insults and accusing the poster of not knowing his or her stuff.
Click to expand...

Your above statement is the logical fallacy of bare assertion. I've argued against mathematicians and physicists, and I have been very nice to them because they were nice to me. But they eventually dropped their arguments against the Omega Point Theorem--which is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, which have been confirmed by every experiment to date--because as Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem."

Don't you think you're a bit old for trying to get work accepted via the internet rather than through real science and research?
Click to expand...

The Omega Point Theorem has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals (see my above article for the citations on that). My article is a popular-audience article in order to let more people know of these results.
 
Dancing David said:
Except for this bizarre thing, it sure doesn't look like the universe if going to collapse, now does it?
Click to expand...

See pp. 16-19 of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom