Science & Philosophy. Religion & Physics. XXIc.

[socratus]

GOD and the MATERIAL WORLD.

Can we know anything concretely about God ?
Whether it is possible to explain religion with the help of the
physical and mathematical theorems?
Yes. It is possible.
Because to create all MATERIAL WORLD the God
could only working in any an absolute reference system
and only under any physical and mathematical laws.
* * *
If you have time and desire, I ask you to visit my site:
http://www.socratus.com
Thanks.
Israel Sadovnik .
Socratus.

[socratus]

The leaves and roots: abstraction and consciousness.
The tree is covered with a lot of leaves.
The leaves rustle, speak, argue among themselves.
But shouldn't they know that the roots feed them?
Physicists behave as leaves.
They rustle, speak, argue among themselves.
But they forget the roots of science, namely that we build the base
of a science on abstract ideas.
The base of the classical mechanics is constructed on abstract
Separate absolute space and abstract separate absolute time of Newton.
The base of thermodynamics is constructed on the abstract
ideal gas theory.
The base of the theory of radiation is constructed on
the abstract black body theory.
The base of SRT is constructed on the abstract theory
of four-dimensional space theory.
On this abstract base, physicists build a concrete building of
science and are surprised when they discover paradoxes in it.
But in nature there are no paradoxes observed.
Something is not in order with logical thinking.
It is necessary to stop, look back and
to reconsider the abstract base of science.
But everyone is in a hurry to try to understand reality,
and they create new abstraction. It is a way to “mad infinity”.
Therefore we live in the world of abstraction, of paradoxes,
in the Orwell,s world.
How to break off this circuit of abstraction?

[socratus]

The Old Philosophical Problem.
The dispute on the divisibility of a particle has been conducted from ancient times.
There were two opposing views:
1) a particle can be divided infinitely,
2) the division of a particle comes to an end when it reaches the ultimate particle
They began by splitting a body into finer and finer parts: to molecules,
molecule to atoms, atoms to electrons, protons and neutrons.
Then they constructed accelerators. They began see if protons and neutrons
could be divided into other elementary particles and in the process,
creating so many particles that it is even difficult to list them.
But physicists do not believe that there is a true initial particle.
In listening to their explanation of the situation in the microcosm, one is reminded of a madhouse. Only there is it possible to learn that the part is more than whole.
When physicists began to study the macrocosm, they were sure that
in using the formulas, equations and laws they relieved the
consciousness of man from prejudice. Therefore the physics was considered
an ally of common sense. But when they began to study the microcosm,
they began to complain of paradoxical devices. Then physics became an enemy
of common sense.
Can physics be paradoxical? Can nature be paradoxical? Is it the
laws of nature or the thinking of the physicist?
A Simple example.
From the time of Newton–Huygens, the dualism of light was known
and debated. To set the question:
If we ask how can the wave become a particle, the question will be paradoxical.
But if we ask how the particle can create waves, the question will be logical.
For over 300 years there has been no one that formulated such a question.

[Epsilon=One]

Can we know anything concretely about God ? …Yes. It is possible.
Because to create all MATERIAL WORLD the God
could only working in any an absolute reference system
and only under any physical and mathematical laws.I agree with your conclusion; however, I have concern and I am not sure how you are defining “God,” as you use the capital “G” that indicates you have a special meaning for the term god.

I understand the word god as indicating that which creates all that exists. Do you attach any anthropoidal qualities to your “God”? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

[Epsilon=One]

Physicists…forget the roots of science…(and) build a concrete building of
science and are surprised when they discover paradoxes in it.

But in nature there are no paradoxes observed.
Something is not in order with logical thinking.
It is necessary to stop, look back and
to reconsider the abstract base of science.
But everyone is in a hurry to try to understand reality,
and they create new abstraction. It is a way to “mad infinity”.
Therefore we live in the world of abstraction, of paradoxes,
in the Orwell,s world.
How to break off this circuit of abstraction?You are correct in that the foundation of all accepted, fundamental paradigms of academic physics’ theories are based upon metaphysics and are lacking in reconcilable logic.

Until the Big Bang theory is discarded there is little hope that any real progress toward understanding the fundamental environment of Reality will be achieved.

Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63) reconciles with philosophical logic, observation, and scientific method. If you should find otherwise, please advise.

[Epsilon=One]

The dispute on the divisibility of a particle has been conducted from ancient times. … physicists do not believe that there is a true initial particle.
In listening to their explanation of the situation in the microcosm, one is reminded of a madhouse. What is more important than the “true initial particle” for reconciling the “madhouse” is to define the seminal energy quantum. It is the geometry and motion of this quantum that defines time and the spatial dimensions and acts as a universal “clock” that regulates the coalescence and propagation of said energy quantum that morphs to particles. Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63) defines this energy quantum as the Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322).

…in using the formulas, equations and laws…(physicists) relieved the
consciousness of man from prejudice. Therefore the physics was considered
an ally of common sense. But when they began to study the microcosm,
they began to complain of paradoxical devices. Then physics became an enemy
of common sense.Wisdom’s (the unification of Science, Theology, and Philosophy) purpose is to understand the total environment in such a way as to maximize individual happiness.

Pomo, academic, theoretical physics, almost entirely, has abdicated responsibility for delivering the individual from the harm of superstition and mythology. As you point out, physics itself is much of the problem.

It can be argued that secular faith is more damaging to an individual’s psyche than religious faith because it is so difficult to recognize. This is the fault of physicists because of the unquestioning, misguided trust that most laymen have placed upon the gospel of their self-promoting pronouncements that lack understandable caveats for the layperson.

From the time of Newton–Huygens, the dualism of light was known and debated. To set the question:
If we ask how can the wave become a particle, the question will be paradoxical.
But if we ask how the particle can create waves, the question will be logical.
For over 300 years there has been no one that formulated such a question.I disagree. The question should be, How does a quantum of energy create dimensions and evolve (coalesce and propagate) to a manifestation that has the properties of mass; and, then return (compress and dissipate) to the beginning manifestation of energy?

See: Pulsoid Theory: an Overview. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128)

[socratus]

I disagree. The question should be, How does a quantum of energy create dimensions and evolve (coalesce and propagate) to a manifestation that has the properties of mass; and, then return (compress and dissipate) to the beginning manifestation of energy?
* * *
That is the quantum of energy?

Simultaneously ; particle and wave?
It is like as a simultaneously ; space and time.
It is like as a simultaneously ......
........
It is the same what to say -
the logic information and senseless message they are the same.

[Epsilon=One]

That is the quantum of energy?

Simultaneously ; particle and wave?
It is like as a simultaneously ; space and time.
It is like as a simultaneously ......
........
It is the same what to say -
the logic information and senseless message they are the same.I do not understand your point.

Are you ridiculing theoretical physics’ two concepts: light being defined as either a particle or a wave; and, space and time being linked as spacetime?

If so, I agree that the current understanding of light, mass, space, and time is incomplete; thus, accounting for much misdirection, enigmas, and paradoxes.

Quanta of discrete radiant energy pulses (Light waves) behave as discrete massless particles that mimic the action of true subatomic particles. Only true particles that are composed of resonant waves (of a particular state of Light) that are completely, internally reflected are compressible; and thus, exhibit the phenomena of mass and gravity.

Space is an instant manifestation of seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179). Space often connotes emptyness; space is never empty nor . . . continuous; thus the term Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151) is preferred.

Time (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=164) does not occur until a “clock” manifests as a result of the subsequent turbulence of the complex pulsing, oscillations of seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179). Space and time (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=164) are entirely different concepts.

Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=214) is developed from these concepts of motion and its subsequent evolution to all that exists.

[socratus]

Dear Epsilon=One ask me:
Please give your definition of "God."
The answer.
Albert Einstein once remarked:
"The greatest trouble in the world is the idea of a personal God!"
* * *
The doctrine of a personal God could never be refuted by science.
Why?
Because only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.

[socratus]

Dear Epsilon=One
If we want to understand the reality,

we cannot speak "light", it is necessary to speak " quantum of light "

If quantum of light flies always rectilinearly c=1, it is mad one.

Is he really mad?

[socratus]

Dear Epsilon=One.
Quantum of light is a particle and wave simultaneously.
Exact there is a simultaneity of space and time.
You have understood it.
I do not understand it.
For me such explanation is unsatisfactory.
It just as to speak, that the logic information and
the senseless message are the same simultaneously.
Best regards.
Socratus.

[Epsilon=One]

Quantum of light is a particle and wave simultaneously.As with any dialogue, you must begin with definitions; in this case, for “particle” and “wave.”

I define a particle as a manifestation that has mass, which is a consequence of the Pauli Exclusion Principle (http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node168.html) (PEP) that most simply states: two particles cannot occupy the same place. An additional consequence of PEP is the commonest gravitational effect.

The “Why?” of PEP has to do with the resonance of the waves that are the constituents of particles.

Thus, something can be said like: A particle has mass and a gravitational effect; and, all other phenomena are waves.

Now explaining why a “quantum of light is a particle and wave” reduces to something more like: Why does light act as a particle when obviously it is not because of its lack of mass and a gravitational effect?

The answer to the last question has to do with light’s pulsing nature and its internal geometry that creates a misinterpretation of being a particle when the pulses are detected.

The complexities of the internal, hyper-relativistic resonances, referred to as Resoloids, of a light pulse/wave are such that they all are detected as pulses and some because of total internal reflection manifest in accordance with PEP.

Exact there is a simultaneity of space and time.Space and time are also quite different; and, referring to “spacetime” probably adds to the confusion. The confusion is somewhat more subtle than light’s particle/wave duality.

To begin, it is necessary to understand that theoretical physics is unable to define any of the dimensions in a meaningful manner. At best, the dimensions are defined circularly . . . in terms of one another. Thus, the problem of dimension definition is greater than just that for “space” and “time.”

Time is quite difficult because there are many types of “time” that are quite different. A sun dial measures by the rotation of the Earth; a quartz watch measures by atomic vibrations; etc.

The cleanest definition of “time” is that: “time” is that which is measured by a “clock.” Of course, that begs the definition of “clock.” However, concentrating on the “clock” helps by clarifying the different types of time; and, helps to focus on the precise “set of mechanisms” that constitutes the “clock” for each type of time.

One type of time is more intrinsic to fundamental manifestations than gravity is to particles. This time that synchronizes fundamental phenomena is referred to as fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT).

Space is difficult to understand because for many persons it connotes “emptiness” and continuity. It is neither.

Space is the ultimate reduction of motion and it is the ‘clock” of FIT that quanticizes this seminal motion . . . space.

Ask questions and see: An understanding of space and time. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=376)

[socratus]

According to Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP)
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron recovers the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron (for example – two),
this atom represents “ Siamese twins”.
Save us the God of having such children!

[Epsilon=One]

According to Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron recovers the atom.I may have simplified PEP; however, I cannot agree with any of your statement.

[socratus]

The simplest thing, which has created a God / Nature on a planet the Earth,
is the atom of hydrogen.
The most complex thing, which has created a God / nature on a planet the Earth,
is the Man (ring of a Nature).
The man consists of atoms and he an alive essence.
The simplest atom is also alive object.
The atom of hydrogen lives 12 minutes.
The nature develops from simple to difficult;
the evolution of the world goes from the lowest condition to the highest one.
Therefore, on the our planet , is necessary to consider a chain of evolution
of Life from the simplest atom up to the Man.

[Epsilon=One]

The simplest thing, which has created a God / Nature on a planet the Earth,
is the atom of hydrogen.Not even close. The atom of hydrogen is quite complex.

The most complex thing, which has created a God / nature on a planet the Earth, is the Man (ring of a Nature)."Man" is the highest known form of evolution.

Therefore...is necessary to consider a chain of evolution of Life from the simplest atom up to the Man.Why begin with the "simplest atom"?

[socratus]

I understand the word god as indicating that which creates all that exists. Do you attach any anthropoidal qualities to your “God”? If so, what are they? If not, why not?
Epsilon=One
Senior Member

Yes Senior Member Epsilon=One.
You understand me right.

The secret of theology hided in the anthropology.
/Leibniz/
But the secret of anthropology hided in the theory of light quanta.
Socratus.

[Epsilon=One]

You understand me right.I do not completely understand you until you answer the questions: Do you attach any anthropoidal qualities to your “God”? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

[kingdomofgod123]

Yes I will totally support your points in this post.
In which world is a material and god created it by Raw of mathematical and physical formulas.
Still he is working on that to make this world more beautiful for all.
Simply god is grate creator.
www.gvelc.com

[astonwarwick]

"If it wasnt for me you would not be here" says God. Man replies "No, if it wasnt for me YOU wouldnt be here"

I think that sums it up.

[liposuctionguide]

I disagree. The question should be, How does a quantum of energy create dimensions and evolve (coalesce and propagate) to a manifestation that has the properties of mass; and, then return (compress and dissipate) to the beginning manifestation of energy?