Aethelwulf

Well, no one else needs to know you business than yourself - just basically means it has nothing to do with anyone but your good little self

The lack of evidence is not evidence against. Something you will learn in science friend.

Why are they extremely improbable? Many might concur the fact we are even sitting here, at our computers, writing the things we write, extremely improbable. But here we are?

To be frank, I find some of the users quite arrogant here - a bit up themselves, so much so, idea's they think is out their league they should not entertain. Why should God be a fairy tale? I deal in real science. Science is about possibilities. Not once in science should one say anything is for certain and nowhere in these posts have I entertained the idea that a God is certain. What I have said and will continue to say, God is a possibility - one you guys as real scientists need to wake up to...

Rubbish. Scientists don't know the truth to any theory they present so are they automatically agnostics? If they are... give up on science. Agnostic to you is enough to ''give up'' on real investigative science. Science should be any topic that could be real... theory is such a topic.If science cannot disprove it then science's outlook is incomplete. God is not some mystical fairy at the end of the garden. It is only one question that science has not answered. Unable to answer as of yet.

Quite the opposite.

I agree... It cannot tell you what happened. I won't argue. If any of these pre-bang situations are your topic, I will argue them however... maybe these cyclic theories? The world is not cyclic, they certainly happened once and right now. ... and nothing is isotropic to these actions.

It's definately not a pointless question... especially when one comes to realize that no such question has a real answer. Such a question cannot be outside of science either. the kind of science we often deal with, is the sciences we can measure. In respect of this, there very well could be something, intelligent beyond us that we cannot fathom or measure.

Einstein was suggesting much more than what you could easily comprehend with a God. Easily, it seems obvious, you don't realize what a God could be, or one that even fitted the works of one of our greatest scientists. In that kind of understanding, you may as well be a reject in in his eyes? After this, I simply expect you to be angry. Because it is the truth.

Certainly no one's buisness than yours...

Really?? How Ironic of anyone... No one knows Quantum mechanics. Science is pretty much built up on theories. Anything he did know, you certainly don't. How about that?

Juangra Enough. You have highjacked this thread enough to disturb enough of even the mods. Please retire to a new discussion.

What am I suggesting he knew? If you knew an INCH of science, you wouldn't ask. Who here has made claims out of science... start making some to challenge me. Look, you guys may have a problem with life and the idea of a God, but life is not without such a conception in the idea of something beyond you.

I believe what I am saying, is that physics is an evidence of the natural world, an evidence which is a world we do not know really know the physical world about. The world is so complicated, even the earliest scientists knew that physics yielded a great deal of unknowns that reality truly is a mystery. If a god is responsible, there is plenty room for it, (him or she).

Doubtful there is even a micro-microscopic fiddling set of smurfs who show up every sunday. I am talking about physics here... not the stuff of fantasy... the kind of theory. This isn't about stories you hear at bedtime.... The world is far more complicated and ultimately unknown to knowingly think there is not some superior being existent. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge would know this... Einstein did. Enough said.

When someone says the word ''God'' most people think of divine, omnipotent, omnipresent and all-knowing entities. There are some problems with an all-knowing entity, such as the Uncertainty Principle. If a God truly exists, he must abide by the rules of quantum mechanics. If he didn't it surely would cause a tremendous discharge of energy from each and every particle in the universe due to [math]\Delta E \Delta t[/math]. There is one reason why (a) God cannot be outside of the rules of quantum physics, assuming that relativity has any universal truth or precedence. Since nothing exists outside of the universe, we must assume God is contained within his own creation - indeed, assuming he even created the universe. A possibility of such an entity would be that they were created inside of the bubble of the universe, entwined if you like in a ''creation'' which he (or indeed she) had no control over. Many people have traditional views of God today, mostly evolved from scriptures and ancient proverbs - but these have been adapted by men on Earth who have created these views to suit their doctrine and way of thoughts and systematic beliefs and foibles. What does seem certain, if a God does exist and are so superior, beyond the intellect of man, it is doubtful he or she would even find us interesting. Indeed, the God of Einstein was Spinoza's God, a God who does not care for the doings of mankind. This is likely, the kind of God we can deal with in physics, or any kind of understanding of any physical kind of science. God is not outside of science, so long as you realize that God must be ignorant of many physical qualities that we often think he is superior for. So what is ''God'' if not something we associate to scripture? God in my eyes, should be ''something'' which has as quantum nature about it. Usually in quantum mechanics, to encode the information about a particular system, we consider a ''State Function'' often denoted with a [math]\Psi[/math] ''a capitol Psi''. The is the wave function which describes if you like, all the information of a system, which could be from a particle to the entire universe. The problem however, is, just like a particle you can only know [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] of any attribute of a particle system. You may know for instance, with almost correct parameters the position of a particle, but doing so would result in an amazing uncertainty inherent in its momentum/trajectory. The wave function therefore itself, or rather, the state function cannot ever really be known completely unless we where talking about systems which was ''macroscopic'' because such systems are devoid of quantum effects (not entirely, but enough) to be ignored. A position of Schrodinger's cat is not smeared over space for instance. So in it's full form, is the universe a victim of quantum effects? It is after all, something large and can be modeled as a macroscopic system? Well, most of the universe is made up of about 99% space. The rest of it exists as tangible ''existing out there'' matter, the kind that our most functional telescopes can hone in on and take pictures of. The rest of space is made up of ghostly matter which appears to be smeared over all spacetime. Some of it in the form of radiation, others will be smeared over spacetime as particles or other types of matter resonating from other distant galaxies. And even, some of this matter might actually turn up in different parts of space which a most recent experiment has shown (citations can be given if asked for). I have even speculated within myself whether anamolous gravitational effects show up in the universe because the matter in the universe turn up in places they shouldn't according to this experiment, and thus, adding a reason why we pick up gravitational distortions where they should not be present. God could even be some kind of ''supercomputer'' who is located in the future sending signals back in the form of (what I will call) Cramer Waves. Cramers delayed choice experiment has shown that actions in the future can in fact alter present conditions we see today. In relativity, we have no such thing as a ''true past'' or even a ''true future''. So maybe God is really some kind of machine in our future horizon which creates the world we see around us today, (which would mean ultimately) that things we do and observe in the present is really shaping the world in the past, when the universe was young and ripe.

Indeed. Perhaps, a lot of the acceptance today has resulted from the ability of being able to admit you are gay. I don't know how close to the truth this is, but I heard two days ago that Turing had the choice to decide to accept either a custodial sentence for his ''crimes'' or to accept hormonal treatment. If that is true, hormonal treatment cannot treat homosexuality. How far indeed we have moved on, to even realize you cannot change what is wired into the blood.

M theory you mean? Even if there was other universes, (which I don't believe there is), M theory could be describing a different universe. There is nothing in quantum mechanics saying the most bizarre universes out there couldn't exist.

No not cross product that's something different. And there are no matrices present. This is simply a type of algebra involving imaginary numbers - three of them.

The best way I know of to describe quaternions (which is like jumping into the deep end of number theory) is the following: How do you solve [math]x^2 = 1[/math]? The answer is [math]x = \pm 1[/math] How do you solve [math]x^2 = -1[/math]? The answer is [math]x = \pm i[/math]. Here we have had to invent a new kind of number, an imaginary number to solve that equation. What's the solution to the equation [math]x^2=0[/math]? Someone might answer, [math]x=0[/math] but interestingly that is not the only solution. To obtain solutions to equations which are outside of the abilities of the real numbers that high school students deal with every day, you need to be begin to introduce a new kind of number system. Real numbers have the simplistic form of [math]a[/math],when we talk about complex numbers (the stuff with imaginary parts to equations), we begin to talk about forms of the type [math]z = a + ib[/math]. Then after this number system comes the quaternions which introduces three independent imaginary numbers [math]q = a + ib + jc + kd[/math] where the [math](a+b+c)[/math] are reals as you would find in your everyday counting system. The way they work is that the [math]i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1[/math] - but the way they form an algebra is the way they work when for instance, [math]i[/math] and [math]j[/math] are multiplied together. So what do they make?the following: [math]ij = k[/math] and [math]jk = i[/math] [math]ki = j[/math] If you reverse the order of multiplication then they produce the negative values [math]ji = -k[/math] and [math]kj = -i[/math] [math]ik = -j[/math] So its quite complicated stuff. So the product of two are noncommutative.

Panspermia could lead to a ''measure of closeness or proximity'' between life-bearing planets.

Pm if you need to talk to someone.

No problems, take your time and get well!

Did you find me a link yet saying they have definitely found a Higgs Boson...No? I thought so. Start understanding what the meaning of the word ''conclusive'' means. When scientists are absolutely sure, they will not hesitate publishing such a find... outside of rumors. I will not believe rumors until I see something which collaborates your own assertions here. I don't deny that Higgs may have been found, but as I said, nothing conclusive can be said about it because no one has announced it.

I saw this on youtube and thought this would be right up your street I don't support it. It's just another wild wacky... brains dribble out your ears theory to me lol