I thought it fitting to post these in R&S also, since apparently most resident atheists are also Physicists.?

Question

Ok, this ended up being a 2 part question/theory, and I was sad, and rather surprised to see very few answers. I would ask that you take the time to read through what I am trying to say, with an open, unbiased mind, and then give me some honest feedback. THIS IS JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. I am not trying to be the next Ron Hubbard.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Asd3WsMknImY5bPZuk070XXsy6IX?qid=20070328065633AAsOvTJ

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvyRQ49ZJ5Oez2WJHvvW6Dbsy6IX?qid=20070328084652AAxgAtq

Answer 1

I was going to drop this before I got your rather challenging e-mail, so I will repeat what I replied to you in my mail.

Put you entire theory in one location, like on your 360 page, and give tell people where they can find it. Do not put a section here and a section there with breaks in it all over the place.

If you want to show people the path, your direction should be clear.

Now, am I to be called an athiest simply because I asked for that?

Did you know that the first person to propose the Big Bang was a priest who actually studied Einstein's theorys and realized that it left the possibilty of a moment of creation. He did this by studying the theories he was trying to either discredit or change so that he could use those theories to prove a moment of creation and the existance ot God.

He then respectfully discussed the matter with Einstein and also Edwin Hubble, and they agreed with him because he knew what he was talking about.

He did not watch a few TV programs and suddenly have a flash of insight that allowed him to claim to have solved a problem that has been search for for decades.

Let's take a look:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Now another version:

In the beginning there was nothing, no time, no space, no matter (sounds like it was without form, darkness and void to me).

Then, there was a sudden release of energy which created the universe as we know it (Ok, let there be light).

Scientist have always known this is basicly the same statement, however, most people seem to see it as opposed to each other.

You need to stop treating people as enemies and learn to see what they have to say, you may find they are saying the same thing.

Also, do not call anyone who thinks YOU are wrong an atheist. That is just plain insulting.

Answer 2

Most physicists believe the presence of a Singularity in the Friedman solution to General Relativity is an indication that General Theory of Relativity is only appoximately correct and the correct theory remains to be discovered.

Frankly I don't see why a "correct solution" might not include singularities. I certainly do not believe that a correct solution would be uniquely determined as some believe. I think a correct solution must allow for the anthropic principle.

Actually I am not a Physicist but a Mathematician, although I have taken graduate General Relativity and Cosmology courses.

Answer 3

It gives great weight to the Buddhist logic about "no finite beginning and no finite endings". Turns Western thinking on it's ear... you might get a huge kick out of "The Quantum and the Lotus" by Mattieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan if you liked that show and enjoy tossing around possibilities.

_()_

Answer 4

I'm sorry- I have ADD that's why I like it so much here- it's constantly changing- but your questions are just faaaaaaaaar too long to hold my attention. I hope someone else has time to read them and reply with something good, good luck on finding the answers you seek.

Answer 5

Baloney.E=mc2 has lost credibility over the past 30 years.