My father is Italian! Casamicciola, Ischia! Senza traduttore!

Is buffone really bad?

Possiamo farlo gentile! E facile! Siamo Dio! Billione di volte! Scusami.

They called me that in Italy for fun!

I'll do the math. — praxis

Why don't you write
$\frac{4\pi\alpha}{\sqrt{2}\mu}$
as
$\frac{2\sqrt{2}\alpha\pi}{\mu}$?

It's soul tearing! What is told here?

, let’s say “the Billionity”, — Angelo Cannata

:lol:

Sei un buffone! :smile:

Suppose they did. That would undermine the reason they created life for. The virus in heaven wants to look at viral acting as it was before, like the heavenly tree, monkey, whale, fish, bird, snake, etc. Seeing the happening that caused them to create the universe in the first place is not what's intended.

$\Delta\nu_{20} (r)-\Delta\nu_{10}(r)=c^2\nu_{20}(r)$!

I am not asking God to make me as an image of him. I am asking God to make me 100% God as well. Why doesn’t he do it — Angelo Cannata

If they did, they would have given you the power of creation. Things would have gone out of hand. They only needed a mirrored version. Acting like them without the happening occurring that gave rise to the need of a mirror version in the first place.

:lol: What potential you use?

If gods created life in their image, then the image, by definition, wouldn't be the same as the gods. Life acts like gods, talks like gods, hunts like gods, makes love like gods, flies, crawls, and cries like gods, procreates like gods, fantasizes like gods, theorizes like gods, dives, drills, or stinks like gods, writes, paints, sculpts, gathers, or eats like gods, etcetera. The only thing gods don't do is investigate a material universe and gather knowledge about it, as the material universe was the invention of theirs to create a universe in order to mirror the eternal heavenly life.

What’s the problem with making us Gods? — Angelo Cannata

The problem is the fact that we are no gods. We, the creatures of the universe, and the universe itself, are a material reflection of the life as it is in heaven. That's why we are able to investigate about the gods and the heaven they life in.

Doesn’t but does exist… maybe you mean that something exists, like quantum particles for instance, but how are those particles distinguished from other particles without people? — praxis

Quantum particles can't distinguish themselves?

The concept of paper exists without people? — praxis

The concept of money wouldn't exist without people and neither would it's physical incarnation in coins, paper, and computer bits.

Disagreeing does not constitute "fiercely resisting." — T Clark

That's unarguably true. But after reading the comments they left an impression than can better be described by resistance (maybe not fiercely) than disagreement.

Everybody who doesn't see the nightmare-like character of western civilization has or been brainwashed to sufficient extent, or paid well enough to shut up.
— Hillary

This is not an argument — T Clark

Agreed. It's an observation.

It's easy for an omnipotent God to create such a stone he can't lift. That's why He's omnipotent. After He created it He can just make Himself strong enough again to lift it. It's fun to be omnipotent. Though being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent are equivalent to omni-impotent, omnistupid, omni-absent, and omnimalevolent.

God had to make shit smell, to prevent folks disappearing up their own arses like the Ouroboros. — unenlightened

Good gracious lord....

It's strange. There is a "beyond the standard model" section on physicsforum. So I thought to give it a try. But the section is as conservative like hell, and even suggesting substructure is a sin. Speaking of dogma...

I think starting such a site is a good idea.

Why 6D in particular as opposed to the 10D of string theory? — universeness

Because this is the way to create a geometric structure that looks point-like in three independent directions, while keeping an apparent 3d bulk space.

Suppose space was apparently 1d. This could be envisioned by a thin cylinder, with a Planck sized radius. . If we place a circle on it that is the particle in a 1d space, which is actually 2d.

We could do the same for an apparently 2d space which is actually4d and the circle becomes a direct product of two circles. If we do this for an apparently 3d space we need the product of three circles, S1xS1xS1. Like that, the particles can be packed without forming an actual singularity as in black holes and the start of the universe ain't no singularity either! On top of that, the Planck length is Lorenz invariant as the three extra dimensions are perpendicular to the three large dimensions. Ain't that great! Them gods were ingenious bastards!

I have a serious problem at this point! how can that which is 'virtual' 'fill' anything.
Virtual particles are mathematical only. There is no empirical evidence that they exist IN REALITY. — universeness

Yes, that's the usual argument. But not everyone agrees. Not being detectable is not equivalent to not being real. And it offers a nice mechanism for the appearance of real particles out of the the vacuum during inflation . The negative curvature pushes them into real existence. The vacuum is filled with virtual particles and in a sense, space can be said to be constituted by them. It's the medium for particle interactions.

Professor Harari in Israel actually gave me a friendly reply to my questions and not even asked s dime! Unlike Carroll, of which it's not even sure if he answers!

Particles, their couplings to virtual particle fields, and the spacetime needed to let them play, behave in a certain way. How else can it be? Both the particles and laws they behaviorally conform to are created by a non-material agency. Do the particles truly obey the law? No, they just ac and interact. We construct the laws and claim retroactively they conform, which again happens in very specific experimental circumstances.

"If it is important to acquire knowledge of natural phenomena to better the lot of mankind", as Francis Bacon had insisted, then (so they thought) "it must be even more important to acquire knowledge of social phenomena."

The question, which we, being rational philosophers, of course is if this is true. So, is this true or an irrational opinion?

Romanticism has been dubbed the Counter-Enlightenment — Dermot Griffin

I think the enlightenment was a truly ramantic period, freeing the plebs from the irrational cruelties performed in the name of an equally irrational superbeing. The promise to bring the light of a new reality in the darkness spread over Earth by biblical visions of punishment, salvation, armageddon, and a life in hell (of which many had the privilige to experience it long before their actual entering in purgatory) is a romantic promise.

Thing is, the once warm light has become a blinding and hot search light, relentlessly enlightening every corner that should stay in the dark, and occasionally burning what it looks for because of it's intensity.

Now we're talking! Im in the park right now but will surely reply when back home. There's some pretty serious barking going on! :up:

Dialetheism (from Greek δι- di- 'twice' and ἀλήθεια alḗtheia 'truth') is the view that there are statements which are both true and false. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true.

Draw your conclusions...

Because you are a hopeless romantic — emancipate

Correction, Calimero! Hopeless no, romantic yes. Will being romantic show you god(,s)?

don't mean you're an idiot. Quite the contrary.
I don't like most theists either, but that doesn't mean I deny the existence of god. God is not an old man on a cloud or anything. God is something that connects us all in one way or another. — Vincent

:up:

Wise words my friend! I made a short story about the gods. I think every creature or organism, yes the whole universe, have an eternal counterpart in heaven, and it was that eternity that was involved in their decision to recreate heaven.

I believe you. I am not suspicious of everything you say, especially in regards to your extensive physics and cosmology knowledge. — universeness

Can't we make a site for alternative theories of physics? But with respect for the actual theories already in use?

And changing your mind often comes across as an idiot. — Vincent

Why? I mocked them theists too, and still do. But they exist (gods) and without them what meaning would have life?

I have made progression with the ToE though. I have found, I think, a way to mathematically describe the particle geometric structure. Consider a 6d space. Now, we need a 6 dimensional metric (6x6 matrix, without time yet). The first block describes the bulk, the second block the 3 curled up dimensions. Now, the bulk 3d vacuum is filled with virtual particles fluctuating (rotating) and the real particles are actually virtual particles with precise momenta and positions and existence in time, and they interact by coupling to these virtual ones, breaking them open (the single virtual particle is actually a circle in a spacetime Feynman diagram). The virtual particles can get accelerated away from each other in a background bulk that is one dimension higher, if this 4d space is hyperbolical or saddle like, as negative curvature represents repulsive gravity. How do we contain the particles in a 3d space and how can a vacuum be hyperbolical? Well you can say that the virtual particles cause a negative curvature. Virtual gravitons coupled to real mass cause positive curvature of spacetime. Virtual gravitons are part of empty space too. But with real mass they cause positive curvature and when no real mass is present yet, as before the big bang, the default curvature is that of the internal of a torus, which has negative curvature on the inside. So the virtual particles, confined to 3d around the hole of the 4d torus, can accelerate away from each other on the inside part of the torus (we only need the inside part of the torus and extend the negative curvature to infinity). How do gravitons curve space(time) though? The difference between the three basic particles is a different one than the gravitational interaction. The gravitational interaction in general relativity is described by curvature of spacetime, while the quantum field picture is a particle interaction. If gravity is mediated by particles, then how the curvature arises? Einstein described gravity by spacetime curvature but how mass/energy curve space is not explained. If we put two masses in empty space, they couple to the virtual graviton field, but how does this curve space (and time automatically)? The space between two electrically charged particles gets not curved when the couple to the virtual photon field. Of course gravitons are tensor particles, but why, if they couple to mass, should that induce space curvature? I asked on physics forums but got no answer, only comments of being an improper question or deletion of the question (and bannings for asking to much, so it seemed). I have my ideas about it and you're right. Why bother about them gods? BTW, prof. Harari answered me politely, but I think he's an exception to the rule. Most of them hotshots think they live high above. But maybe for a dollar I might contact Carroll. But it's the very idea that you have to pay to ask. Im curious though for his answer.

Well, some addictions are good for you, such as addiction to life, to communicating with others, to helping others, addiction to love, addiction to wonderment, addiction to truth seeking. I am just trying to convince YOU PERSONALLY that your addiction to science is far more worthwhile and useful than your dalliances with polytheism. It's time you forgave the current cosmology community for not giving your ToE more of an airing. Learn to love them again and stop wasting your affection on that which has no existence! — universeness

You are a poet!

I was thinking about the same song and actually hoped you posted it! No kidding!

Yes that is true. But I thought you were also worth atheist. You said that right? — Vincent

Yes, I said that. But it was part of a play I performed to join the atheist belief and make them admit their own defeat. I started rather pompously, and @universeness sensed my play very well. I continued though and almost succeeded, hadn't I revealed the play too early. I couldn't resist when he said that "we surely had many exchanges before", which he said because that wasn't yet the case. And indeed, we have had many many discussions here before.. So I answered, "I think so too!", which settled the score. But I wonder where we would be if I hadn't revealed. I almost got him over! But the clown in me got the upper hand. Again...

Do you honestly think that the 'god does not need an origin,' special plead, is ever going to be accepted by atheists? — universeness

In defense of SpaceDweller, the gods don't need explanation as eternal intelligence is selfsufficient. Eternal stupid particles need an explanation though.

erhaps this time, 'that's not my name!!' will keep his name longer! — universeness

You think that bla... could be a reason for a ban?

Oh well, brother Uni, life is a long ride on the back of them crazy horses. Who knows where they lead us. We can always jump off and lay our weary heads at rest for a while and just bite a straw. I think I have seen most on this forum by now on which just a handful of people offer there musings without actually listening to each other (you, btw. making an exception, which I truly mean, eventhough you're an atheist...). It gets time to do other things. The thing is, it's kind of addicting and I'm kinda perceptive to that.

So it exists an doesn't exist at the same time. Must feel pretty schizo.

You can however keep helping me with the holes in my physics/cosmology — universeness

What hole of yours you want me to fill, your bla...no, too much! :lol:

You could have 'massaged my doubt a little longer but you use the same 'errors in English' all the tim — universeness

It was my English? Damned!

God is our basis of our existence, but is not visible. Compare it to a tree. The basis are the roots, but they are also not visible. How can you understand the workings of a tree if you can't study the basics. That's the same with man. If you don't believe that humanity has invisible roots (god), then you don't grasp the basics and you can never understand humanity properly. — Vincent

That's it! Though I think all life and the universe is just a reflection of life in heaven.

No, we don't all need to think alike, that sounds like automatons. We just have to obtain a majority agreement and then be willing to act. Groups of Russians should currently be in armed revolt at the moment. I think it would be horrific for them but I think many of their police and soldiers would soon join an uprising. They did it before, unfortunately they put a complete dipshit in power (Boris Yeltsin.)
They need to rise up again and destroy Putin. — universeness

I agree they should do that. And suppose they did. And a new authority settles. What then? Power corrupts, mr. Universe!

Let's try with just your first sentence here! What evidence are you basing this statement on? — universeness

"The Universe" as you call it, stands on equal footing with "the gods". "The Universe" (note that you write it with a Capital U as in God with capital G), is a fantasy. You can see it, touch it, measure it, interfere with it, rearrange it, fly into, or whatever, but that's not the only measure of truth. Maybe these are signs of something being Unreal and a distraction from the truth. I believe in the universe too, as you know, but still consider it a story like the gods. They are equally real to me. One doesn't exclude the other. Now there might not be much difference between a heaven with eternal divine life and an eternal universe with the same life coming into existence after every bang. The difference is though that a dead universe is not intelligent enough to create itself. That's what cosmologists want you to believe so they can sublimize their theoretical musings. The basic ingredients logically have to be created by gods.

yes lol. I don't know what to say. Maybe I've convinced him that god does exists — Vincent

Vincent, Mr. Universe is great to talk to. He's a strong man with love for the human species and freedom, but in the theistic domain he still needs to learn, or be learned, a lesson.

Mr. Universe! That was before I revealed myself! Had I continued the play, you would be on my atheistic side now.

This is a paradox one might come across if they consider God's omnipotence. If the answer is yes, then there is one thing he can't do (lift a heavy enough rock), which contradicts the definition of omnipotence (being able to do anything). The same applies if the answer is no. How would you solve this paradox? — Cidat

It's not a paradòx. A paradox can be solved. A paradox seems contra intuitive at first met, and at closer inspection there's nothing wrong. The stone example can't be solved.