What really would it mean to find an equation of God?Report
Post #2Ahmed Samir wroteon December 11, 2009 at 12:55pm
why everybody talk about "god" Report
Post #3James Maxwell wroteon December 12, 2009 at 8:40am
It would mean that God (and all of creation) is completely logical.
But I'm afraid this would be like thinking that having the correct equations of physics would help us make correct social decisions.Report
Post #4Ahmed Samir wroteon December 13, 2009 at 12:29pm
i think that talking about god will not lead us to any thing , god is a big secret and we will not solve it , we cant include god in equations how?..............Report
Post #5Robin Young wroteon December 14, 2009 at 6:53am
equations can only help explain physical existence. the spiritual existence has infinite factors so it is imposable to developer a definite equation.Report
Post #6Ahmed Samir wroteon December 14, 2009 at 7:43am
god is not a physical matter like gravityReport
Post #7Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 14, 2009 at 8:35am
KORAN SAY(İN RAHMAN SURAH):
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
The sun and the moon follow courses (exactly) computed
And the herbs and the trees - both (alike) prostrate in adoration
And the Firmament has He raised high, and He has set up the Balance
(SO I THİNK;EQUATİON İS SETUP THE BALANCE OFF EVERYTHİNG İN UNİVERSE WHİCH CREATED BY GOD)Report
Post #8Robin Young wroteon December 14, 2009 at 9:09am
yes, an equation could be developed to explain the process of the creation of the universe(which i personally believe wasn't actually created), but such an equation could never be developed to explain the existence of God. God, if he dose exist, is a divine being, and divinity can never be calculated.Report
Post #9Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 14, 2009 at 10:13am
ALLRİGHT...
YOU ARE RIGHT..DIVINITY CAN NEVER BE CALCULATED..BUT I CAN SAY( OR CAN BLİEVE THAT);
-WE CAN NOT CALCULATE DİVİNİTY BUT WE CAN SEE GOD'S FİNGERPRİNT İN CREATİON OF THE UNİVERSE, İN ALL EQUATİONS,İN FİNE TUNİNGS..SO ...AND SO..Report
Post #10James Maxwell wroteon December 14, 2009 at 11:18pm
I think we've got a long long way to go before we could have an equation of God. We have enough trouble making gravity and quantum mechanics fit together.
... still, in the long run, I don't think we can have an equation of God, even if God is pure logic.Report
Post #11Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 15, 2009 at 9:35am
I HOPE YOU DONT MEAN Dr. Stephen Unwin EQUATİON .WHİCH İS COMES FROM BAYES THEORY
PROBABİLİTY FOUNCTİON: PROBABİLİTY OF EXİSTANCE OF GOD ;P(GE) = A xP(G)xP(EG) (%66.666...)
200 YEARS AGO ..TOTALLY ABSURD HA HA HA::)))Report
Post #12Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 15, 2009 at 11:01am
H.L/Q=C The equation, which looks like this:
shows a constant, unchanging relationship between the speed of light, the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle, and the radio frequency of hydrogen in space. Artificial intelligence engineer David Cumming, CEO of the Edinburgh-based company Intelligent Earth, recently discovered the equation, and said: "I am a scientist and as such I didn't at first really believe it myself. But physics is physics, and maths is maths, and you can't argue with it."
The discovery of the equation began with research by engineer Professor Alexander Thom (1894-1985) of Oxford University, into the properties of megalithic constructions such as Stonehenge. He found that their construction did not follow existing measurement systems, but did fit in to a pattern of specific lengths which he called megalithic yards. Two independent researchers Christopher Knight and Alan Butler, based in York, then showed that the megalithic system of measurement was directly derived from characteristics of the Earth's movements through space.
Linking this system of measurements with known constants such as π (pi, the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle), Hl, the radio frequency of the hydrogen fine transition in space, Ω (0.0123456789 representing all the characters of the base 10 number system), and the speed of light in a vacuum C0 (C0 = 299,792.458km/sec), and building on research by Knight and Butler, and the work of Professor Alexander Thom, former Reading University doctoral researcher Cumming followed a research programme that resulted in his discovery of the God Equation. The God Equation shows a direct link between the speed of light, the radio frequency of hydrogen in space, pi, and earth's orbit, rotation and weight. As the possibility of the Earth having the exact required characteristics to fit the equation by chance is remote, and the equation has, in theory, been in existence since the beginning of the Universe, this means that the Earth's orbit, rotation and weight must have been engineered to fit this equation.
Report
Post #13Robin Young wroteon December 16, 2009 at 5:29pm
yes, this equation dose explain the engineering of the planet, but not if that engineering was by divine will, or by the natural process of the universes. why is it so hard for some to see the universe being as it is through it's oun nature? must there be a divine engineer?Report
Post #14Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 17, 2009 at 8:45am
Yes.İts strongly look like the creation is engineered.Human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges. John Wheeler and others interpret these amazing "coincidences" as proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the universe. Drawing an illogical parallel with delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics, they say that observations by humans influence the design of the universe, not only now, but back to the beginning. Such versions of what is called the "anthropic principle" reflect current philosophical and religious leanings towards the deification of man. They produce no evidence to support the notion that man's present acts can influence past events. Furthermore, their analogies with quantum mechanics break down on this point. The "coincidental" values of the constants of physics and the parameters of the universe point, rather, to a designer who transcends the dimensions and limits of the physical universe
some people may blieve and some may not blieve.this is a choice..
ı beg your pardon if ı irritated my brother..:))Report
Post #15Dave Kiehl wroteon December 17, 2009 at 1:49pm
Masuk, Would you please share the God equation developed by Thom and Cumming?Report
Post #16Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 17, 2009 at 2:30pm
"David R. S. Cumming"
Post #17Graham Smith wroteon December 20, 2009 at 3:27am
You are on the wrong fb site...GO join the Nihilist group and post these questions about God on there...There is no room for God in Science..just facts that can be seen to exist...not some mumbojumbo about a God.
We are living in a holorgraphic universe and if so "God is a machine"..
LMFAO....Ho Ho Ho merry crimbo...
Report
Post #18Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon December 20, 2009 at 9:16am
Masuk,
what are you talking about?
You need to speak with proper English; people cannot understand you.
If you would like to find a Facebook site in your language about QM, I'd be happy to show you how.Report
Post #19Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon December 20, 2009 at 9:18am
To the topic:
This issue of god on a scientific forum is a bit inappropriate.
I'd suggest going to a religious forum if you would like to debate it there.
Side note:
I believe that many refer to the "god equation" when speaking about a final equation, of which all known equations can be derived.Report
Post #20Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 20, 2009 at 9:46am
ı am scienstific and the same time bliever,if you want,you can go there..there is no only theistic but also atheistic forums on the net....
people can easly understand me, but ı thınk you can't understand(or dont want to understand) me..
You can say Sciense is neutr for theism or atheism,
but you cant say' There is no room for God in Science'Report
Post #21Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon December 20, 2009 at 9:56am
No, I can't understand you easily.
I believe that you should either have your posts translated by a translation service (Babblefish), or work on your English somewhere else. In the mean time, I believe that your posts are too hard for someone fluent in English to understand, and I'd advise you to refrain from posting long messages, for the sake of clarity.
I don't really understand what you're saying below, but I don't really care much for discussing god in a scientific forum.Report
Post #22Tina Richards wroteon December 20, 2009 at 10:50am
No, you can't be easily understood Masuk. It's not that I don't want to understand you... Your english is just really super bad.Report
Post #23Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 20, 2009 at 10:55am
ı understand...my english is really super bad..like someones faith..:)))
ı will work on my english.. thank you ..:))Report
Post #24Shaun Young wroteon December 20, 2009 at 2:42pm
Correct me if i am wrong , but if the Higgs boson is to be found , would that not open the door for an equation for everything? (in theory... its too large to be practical)Report
Post #25Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon December 20, 2009 at 4:01pm
No, not really.
It would experimentally verify GWS theory.
So, have you come back with the knowledge to "Wow" us, Shaun?Report
Post #26Shaun Young wroteon December 20, 2009 at 7:43pm
Actually ,no . My knowledge has greatly increased , but i significantly underestimated the complexity of diff. equations. Im learning it much slower than i had origionally anticipated. So to answer you question , i suppose you can say i came back with an aura of humility. Good to see your still the same though. Anytime u wanna debate just let me know :oPReport
Post #27Don Martinez wroteon December 20, 2009 at 9:09pm
To put limitations on the pursuit of knowledge only reduces the amount of understanding that can be gained. I believe Mr. Einstein would agree with me.Report
Post #28Shaun Young wroteon December 21, 2009 at 12:26pm
Believe me , limitations is not something i bestow upon myself. I just wish to learn differential equations with not even a high school education... and i am... just slower than anticipated.Report
Post #29Samarth Bansal wroteon December 24, 2009 at 5:26am
Thinking of God as a divine power(which I also believe!!) will actually not help us to find eqn of God.
Keeping our religious beliefs aside, we can assume God to be some different kind of energy.... one, which is unknown to physicists. And for it is energy, physics must explain it..... and may be there could be some eqn!!!Report
Post #30Sara Čufer (Gimnazija Šentvid) wroteon December 26, 2009 at 12:22pm
"god is not a physical matter like gravity"
How is gravity matter... Report12Next
Don Martinez wroteon December 26, 2009 at 12:44pm
One theological thought describes god as 'all there is and more' this would place god outside of the realm of physics, thus not to be able to described in symbols neither equations nor words. The god equation indicates mathematical connections between unlike factors. Nature and cosmology are full of such connections these do not indicate god, or not, just common traits of existence.Report
Post #32Derek Schrock wroteon December 27, 2009 at 3:46am
Maşuk Taylan and anyone else who takes the "God equation" seriously, go back to your chem 101 textbook or algebra and look at the equation.
(Hl x π) / Ω = c
c = the speed of light in km/sec
Hl = radio frequency of hydrοgen in MHz
Ω = 0.0123456789 all of the digits in the base ten system
π = ratio of the circumference and radius of a circle
If Cummings is a good scientist then I'm Einstein.
First of all, Ω repeats zero so it's actually all the numbers in the base ten system + 1. Unjustified. In dimensional analysis, your units have to match up, you can't get the speed of light which is a relation of distance/ time from a measurement in megahertz (the Hl variable). Oh yeah, he managed to get a rational answer from an irrational expression, that's magic if I ever saw it and no rounding doesn't change anything. Anyway, there's more problems with it, I've read a bit of Cummings commentary and he says the speed of light has to be in megalithic yards or something. It's just a bunch of random numbers that happen to have a relationship, these sorts of things are known aka probabilities. Everyone, I beg you, read books, do math, think!Report
Post #33Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon December 27, 2009 at 6:13am
He might be using natural units.
Let me check...
No, even if he was taking a cross product in the numerator it wouldn't work out; it would work out being inverse seconds are equal to something unitless.Report
Post #34Bruce Clark wroteon January 7, 2010 at 11:08pm
But I'm afraid this would be like thinking that having the correct equations of physics would help us make correct social decisions.
Yes they should if they where true and sound,for instance if e=mc2 does this means actions are as important as things.Report
Post #35Matthew Clark wrote21 hours ago
who or what put the math into nature so that we can make equations?
What do numbers symbolize?
Isn't e=mc2 a function of life?
What is energy? (energy is the movement of an unknown substance, of unknown origin)
Isn't quantum mathematics showing us the process of making the non-local, local, of bringing abstract quality into concrete quantity & form, thus creating manifest particles out of waves of possibility?
If God is Creativity, a verb, rather than the Creator, a noun, then surely quantum mathematics is showing us how to connect with our own creativity, which is One & the same (as Plank, Schroedinger, Heisenberg et al told us).
Doesn't it show us the dynamic process of Life, of - as in the Big Bang, & all of what is a discontinuous existence, - the function of making something from nothing?
These quantum & relative equations are as psychological as they are material, showing the sacred nature of number, geometry & mathematics, the sacred conscious nature of life, including humanities subtle inner world of emotion, mind & soul.Report
Post #36Don Martinez wrote13 hours ago
Amit Goswami, PhD, is a theoretical nuclear physicist and professor emeritus of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics.
This gentleman has not found an equation for god, but puts forth a good case for the existence of intelligent design using as substantiation the phenomenon of non locality.
Report
Post #37Derek Schrock wrote10 hours ago
Few people take Goswami's ideas on " quantum consciousness" seriously. He participated in one of the most widley known pseudoscientific documentaries out there "What the bleep do we know?" which has been debunked a hundred fold. Just do a little background research on him and the film and you will see what's really going on. Pure nonsense.Report
Post #38Don Martinez wrote10 hours ago
Then what would be a practical explanation on non locality.Report
Post #39Bruce Clark wrote9 hours ago
Correct me if i am wrong , but if the Higgs boson is to be found , would that not open the door for an equation for everything? (in theory... its too large to be practical)
No,because explaing the fundamental forces does not really explain everything.Report
Post #40Derek Schrock wrote8 hours ago
" Then what would be a practical explanation on non locality." I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me to do here, do you want to know why non locality occurs at quantum scales/ how it is possible?
As for what Goswami has suggested we haven't observed non-locality occuring beyond plank scales so to say that our consciousness interacts with the rest of the universe that way is unsupported. It very well may turn out to be true if new evidence is brought forth, but that evidence isn't here yet, only pseudoscientific interpretations.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий