Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Root on June 17, 2009 at 3:06pm

I'd love to be of help but I believe there's numerous problems with your theory.

"1. Zero can not exist as denominator."
Incorrect. 0 can exist as a denominator but the result is either undefined or infinity.

"2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere." "3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere."

Correct only when used as scientific theory of our own reality. This doesn't disprove the existence of other realities from which our reality may have resulted. Basically, those two statements lead to a scientifically unprovable dead end when dealing with universe creation.

"8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only."
We're only able to physically perceive three euclidean dimensions and one non-euclidean dimension.
There is some testable evidence of the existence of additional dimensions. See: Heim- Dröscher Theory, M-Theory, etc. "supersolids", "Einstein condensates", etc.

The main problem you're seeming having is the mis-perception that the 'finite' exists. The description of 'finite' only serves as representative of a measurement of a infinite unit, since the measurement of a single unit has infinite subunits.
Zero can be described as being the composition of infinite dis-similar equal and opposite reactions. 4-4=0=3+1-2-2, etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jared Lardo on June 26, 2009 at 7:24am

"6. There are finite absolute laws.
E = M C2 has another side to it. E stands for the energy of the electromagnetic radiation, M is the intrinsic mass of the electromagnetic radiation and C is the velocity of the electromagnetic radiation. Any ordinary body can be moved and therefore its velocity is relative at constant gravity. Electromagnetic radiation travels on its own, it can not be moved like any ordinary body by moving the source of the electromagnetic radiation. Therefore velocity of electromagnetic radiation is observed to be constant at constant gravity. When there is considerable change in gravity there is change in velocity of the electromagnetic radiation. Therefore velocity of electromagnetic radiation is relative to change in gravity.
We know that... Energy is equal to the product of mass and square of the velocity of light.
E = M C2
F = M g
E = ( F/g ) C2"

E = mc^2 relates to the energy in an object's mass (which can become "energy" energy in fusion events) So that's fail#1

fail#2 is that under varying gravitational field strengths, the speed of EM radition doesn't change; it changes frequency.

----------------

Also, for 2 and 3, change that to "nothing can" instead of this "anything cannot" crap. If you want an absolute statement, then that's the way to say it. "anything can not" is to "nothing can" as x > y is to x >= y

8. If time has already always existed, then you're wrong on this one, too. Other than you're naked assertion that time is "imaginary" you've got nothing. And we all know that assertions aren't worth anything.

9 seems a non-sequitur

10. is based on the presumption of the truth of the parallel line theorem or axiom or whatever it's called of Euclidean geometry (instead of, say, Elliptic (or hyperbolic))

11. that doesn't disprove gods, per se; only their complete worthlessness should they exist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnsky on June 27, 2009 at 5:09pm

Yes, looks like others beat me to it.

While, you're right, there's simply no god out there, I'm sorry to say that this is not proof of it.

A few points came to mind... Zero can span infinitely... given the inherrant relationship between space and nothing... space does in fact span infinitely. However, the physical universe does not.

And yes, something can be created from nothing, you simply have to take into account the negative equivelant of that something as well. 0 = X + (-X) .
We're X.

It's obvious to everyone on this site that god simply doesnt exist. It's a mental construct people create in their minds (imaginary friend) to help them cope with things they arent sure how to...
... but I doubt we can explain that to them with math.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Root on June 29, 2009 at 8:39pm

"We're X."

Or -X...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by gillia tsai on November 22, 2011 at 3:11am

My Buddhist friend tells me there's no Creator God but says there are gods, anothr kind of beings, just like there are animals, humans, ghosts, demi gods (whatever that means).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Raphael on November 22, 2011 at 3:33am

Buddhism is an atheist religion; they do not believe in god(s)
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on November 27, 2011 at 3:06am

Yes, buddhism does believe in the existance of Hindu gods as humanlike entities, living in the heaven. Buddhism does not attribute them any supernatural status. Indra, the king of Hindu gods often finds mention in buddhist literature. Buddhism also recognises the existance of gandharvas, another imaginary humanlike entity of Hindu belief. If Buddhism meekly accepts science, it is not because it trusts science like we atheists do but because it does not seem to have any alternative. To the best of my knowledge, no Buddhist scripture has come out in support of science. Todays hinduism also accepts science without any opposition, for the same reason as the Buddhists. In both the cases, the acceptance has no meaning as it has no effect in real practice.

MADHUKAR KULKARNI.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sagar Gorijala on October 27, 2011 at 11:14pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Raphael on November 22, 2011 at 3:49am

I agree with the others; this theory seems quite haphazard

• ▶ Reply