Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Invalid Data?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on July 29, 2002 02:54:56 UTC

Dr. Dick shows apparantly that the "laws of physics" are reducible to "the law of non-contradiction".

Data that contradicts is invalid. If the laws appear to come from the region of "invalid" data in his work; this presumably just means that they are "the flesh and bones" of the law of non-contradiction.

So you can see, given that his work apparantly solves physics, and physics solves chemistry; that insight can be gained on the words of Jesus Christ (God) at the Last Supper: He took the bread and broke it saying "This Is My Body"; He took the cup of wine and said "This Is My Blood".
"He who eats this bread, and drinks this wine; lives in Me, and I live in Him". "with this food you will never grow hungry, with this wine you shall never thirst; but have life everlasting".

Dr. Dick appears to have shown that what we call "cause and efect" can be seen from a different perspective, a perspective that looks like "eternal life", outside time. Many theological mysteries are dramatically revealed through his work.

To "eat this bread" and "drink this wine" may be to fully realise that ordinary bread and wine are "the body and blood of EXISTENCE; they are created through the law of non-contradiction, the kingdom of EXISTENCE; of being and letting be; the kingdom of God.

"The End Of The World" is thus always 'now'; as is the beginning of the world; "I Am the Alpha and the Omega" God reportedly says.

When you are sitting in a room containing many objects; you can match the patterns of the objects in many ways. But they are all there now. The creation, and time itself; appear to result from the matching together of patterns, in honesty without contradiction.

"Without contradiction"; so without double-booking, without double-defining. So it is said "Let your "yes" mean "yes"; and your "no" mean "no", "all else comes from the evil one".

Contradiction, double-defining, comes from the evil one; who languishes in a dark fiction world of confusion and obfuscation.

"It seems that non-zero delta functions are mathematically incorrect based on his definitions, but they are physically correct. But I cannot claim to understand how that can be. "

The simple act of counting "1, 2, 3..." involves delta functions. At the change-over from "1" to "2"; you have zero "1 on its own" and infinitely "2".

Physics is constrained by "the laws of definition".

Defining things involves narrowing a category in one place, but broadening a new category at that place. Example: you may narrow the definition of "moon" to "objects over 100 km in diameter"; but in doing this you just threw in a new broad category "all things over 100 km in diameter".

Now; I sem to recall that Roger Penrose noted that with physics, when you constrain something in one place it sems to balloon out in another. Since physics involves a network of inter-dependent definitions; it appears that what Penrose is experiencing is the underlying law of definition itself.

Using a delta function approach: when the definition of "moon" is looked at from just one of the numerous category-intersections it involves: "objects over 100km in diameter" intersecting "moon"; you have ONE quantum intersection object as it were at this intersection. But beyond the intersection along the "moon" line so-to-speak; you have freedom (infinity?) to define moon. But from that freedom of "moon", at the intersection you have unity: one interaction with the other free category "objects over 100km in diameter".

The delta function describes the intersection of two categories; and is characteristic of definition itself. Each category appears to have much freedom; this freedom might account for its mathematical treatment as infinity. But at the intersection of the two categories, you have zero-variability and one-interaction.

Integrate the category "moon" at this intersection and you get "one object over 100km in diameter"; integrate the category "objects over 100km diameter" at this intersection, and you get one "moon".

Several superposed categories builds up a finite structure "such as the definition of "moon"". This structure is projected (thus the hologram-aspect of physics laws) from the category intersection superpositions I guess.

Non-zero delta functions: I have only vaguely defined "moon" so far by intersecting this perhaps infinitely free category (as "moon" is so far undefined) with the constraining category "objects over 100km in diameter".

But actually "objects over 100km in diameter" is a bunch of words that to a Chinese speaker may be regarded as free and undefined. All we know if we speak only Chinese is I guess that the two categories intersect.

So I bring in a new category "often glows at night". Now from the perspective of this new category, the category "objects over 100km in diameter" is no longer reduced to zero but for its one member "moon" from the "moon" category perspective.

The delta function has now grown bigger than zero.
This is because its definition region has broadened: it now does not involve just "zero options for objects over 100km in diameter" except for one: "moon".

It now has broadened to include "zero objects over 100km in diameter except one: "moon" PLUS "many objects that glow at night" that are "over 100km in diameter" PLUS "moon".

So "moon" has broadened to include "anything that is over 100km in diameter" AND "often glows at night" but has also been constrained by "often glows at night". This simultaneous broadening and constraining is reminiscent of Chris Langan's CTMU. It is characterised by a partial differential equation; as it involves partially differentiating "moon" from the many alternative ways the three categories can interact (And as comparing and matching patterns is built up in twos (minimum of two patterns to compare) we have the 2-D numbers (complex numbers) and Shrodinger's equation falls out of this very easily it seems.

Now one can see light it seems on why Roger Penrose found things seem to exist as freedom, as alternatives.

Astonishing stuff, but R. Stafford does seem to have done amazing things.

Regards,

Alan

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins