0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deleted as inapproprate
If quantum of light always flies rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.Is he (it) really mad?No.
In scientific and popular publications we can see an often usage of a word “infinity”.For example: the space is infinite, time is infinite, and the Universe is infinite.But anywhere it is not explained, how exactly the infinity is connected with concreteness. One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely on a straight line, never encountering any barrier.The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the numbers infinitely (atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3, … … etc, always adding one point to the number already counted.G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.Hegel thought, that in contrast to "bad" should exist also the “Reasonable infinity “.By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY should be something positive and concrete. At the same time he demanded to specify the following:1) a сonnection between the infinite and the concrete,2) a сonnection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality,3) to explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and the concreteness. For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order to explain this interrelation. But Hegel would like to find more rational, scientific explanation. ====================== And how does the modern science refer to this question?The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing to a scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror". They do not understand how they could draw any real, concrete conclusions from these characteristics.A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not be conformed to a word infinity or eternity. The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders, has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything. Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition and cannot be considered in real processes. Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement (on a level of censor of the law): « If we want that the theory would be correct, the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ». Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities, all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity. They think out various mathematical cunnings (method of renormalization) ..However, R. Feynman said, that: «The method of renormalizations is a way to tidy up rubbish under a carpet». Using artificial mathematical methods, it is possible to get out of any theoretical difficulty, but the question remains: «What relation does it have towards nature? » ================ Whether it is possible to give a specific characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY?Yes. It is possible. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease and, hence, in the future will reach T=0K.The Universe is Nothing: T=0K. The Physics is first of all Vacuum:T=0K. Absolute God can exist only behind this Absolute reference system : Vacuum T=0K.===================== The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning God /Vacuum created " virtual particles ".What a geometrical and physical parameters canthe “virtual particles’ have in Absolute Zero, in T=0K?============== Vacuum in the beginning has created the " light quantum ".And from all particles, only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.Only the light quantum has a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.If quantum of light always flies rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.Is he (it) really mad?No.In Vacuum, in a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.But Quantum of Light has two kinds of internal impulse. 1)Under one internal impulse (Planck,s spin h =1) a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).A quantum of light behaves as a particle. 2) Under other internal impulse (Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck's spin ħ = h / 2pi) a quantum of light rotates around of his diameter and is known as electron. A quantum of light behaves as a wave. Very strange particle is quantum of light. Quantum of light stays in Vacuum and on it nobody and nothing renders influence. It is independent and makes a decision in which of three conditions it occurs. 1. In a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.2 .In a condition of uniform rectilinear movement its impulse h=1.3. In a condition of rotation around of his diameter its impulse ћ =h/2π.So it can work only with particle that has his own consciousness.They are alive, spiritual particles.His own consciousness is not static but can develop. The development of conscious scale goes " from vague wishes up to a clear thought ". This evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.==================== On the question:What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?What must be present in a body to make it alive ?The answer is:Soul. Quantum of Light.Because, from all particles, only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.================ All of us have the personal God and it is Quantum of light.============ http://www.socratus.com
"Do you honestly believe that with all of the genius that has gone by in the last 2000 years, that no one could have discovered if it had all been a great fraudulent scheme which none of the genius of humankind has been able to disprove?"
Fraud, No. Misrepresentation possibly? As it's historical in nature how would you prove it either way? The further you get from an event the less reliable evidence you're likely to have.Being open-minded I'd have to ask "In what way would it appear different if it wasn't true?"
(This question makes me wonder why the highest degrees of intellect would ever deem an answer unworthy of study. Just for starters, why would anyone not be at least “a little concerned” that they just might exist in the wrong 50%? )
Abridged version of Peter Russell's book 'From Science to God' / Reality and Consciousness:/http://twm.co.nz/prussell.htmBecause all we ever know is the product of the mind operating on the raw sensory data, Kant reasoned that our experience is as much a reflection of the nature of the mind as it is of the physical world. Time and space, he argued, are not inherent qualities of the physical world; they are a reflection of the way the mind operates. They are part of the perceptual framework within which our experience of the world is constructed.
Einstein agreed with Kant; all we ever know of the underlying reality are the ways in which it appears as the two very different qualities of space and time. This is the startling conclusion we are forced to acknowledge; the "stuff" of our world—the world we know and appear to live within—is not matter, but mind. consciousness is primary. Time, space and matter are secondary; they are aspects of the image of reality manifesting in the mind. They exist within consciousness; not the other way around. These qualities—truth, absolute, eternal, essence, creator—are amongst those traditionally associated with God. From this perspective, the statement "I am God" is not so puzzling or deluded after all. Although it might be more accurate to say that "I am" is God, or possibly, "God is consciousness".We think that the tree we see is the tree in itself.
When we realize that they are not the same thing at all, but are very different indeed, a revolutionary new model of reality emerges. Space, time and matter fall from their absolute status, to be replaced by light in the physical realm, and by consciousness (the inner light) in the world of experience. This shift in superparadigm has not happened yet. The existing model runs even deeper than did the geocentric view of the cosmos, and will probably meet even more obstacles than did the Copernican Revolution, (although now, somewhat ironically, it is science not the church that is the establishment, and will be the source of the greatest resistance). Nevertheless, I believe all the pieces are in place, they have only to be put together into a coherent model. New paradigms stand or fall according to their ability to account for persistent anomalies, and incorporate new findings. The emerging new superparadigm accounts for consciousness—an intractable anomaly for the old model, remember. It offers radically new perspectives on some of the most perplexing problems in contemporary physics. And, most significantly, points towards a resolution of one of the oldest challenges of all—the reconciliation of the scientific worldview with the spiritual.