Vote For a TOE

[labelwench]

Human conventions absolutely slay me, as in copyright law. Certainly credit to whomever contributes to the knowledge and understanding for and of 'new ideas' and 'original thought'.

Existence holds the 'copyright' on all.

Ownership.

Such a pathetically 'human' idea, that the species is welcome to the claim thereof.

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear austintorn@aol.com,

The first choice seems to be the correct one, because it closes to the conventional definition of TOE, i.e. unification of the four basic force of the nature! And according to the TOE it was believed that all natural phenomena (including mass and energy which are the players) were originated from these forces!

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

[cosvis]

Hi labelwench and all,
I voted for number one because energy according to Einstein must be eternal, it cannot be created nor destroyed, physically. However, this does not exclude God's creative act because He is eternal and acts from eternity. Thus, God's creative act is eternal and thus energy must be eternal.
Yours cosvis.

[Bogie]

Hi labelwench and all,
I voted for number one because energy according to Einstein must be eternal, it cannot be created nor destroyed, physically. However, this does not exclude God's creative act because He is eternal and acts from eternity. Thus, God's creative act is eternal and thus energy must be eternal.
Yours cosvis.

Hi cosvis, your description sounds more like the "God did it" choice. #1 does not exclude the existence of God, but in my view it does exclude creation if by that you mean that matter-mass-energy came into being at a point in time. That seems quite different from "was always around" to me.

[Profpat]

Hi cosvis, your description sounds more like the "God did it" choice. #1 does not exclude the existence of God, but in my view it does exclude creation if by that you mean that matter-mass-energy came into being at a point in time. That seems quite different from "was always around" to me.

Hi Bogie;

I voted for both and a few others. I believe in a cyclic universe, as I think you know, which means the mass/energy has always been around but gets recycled or reformed periodically, in a big bang, through God's design, using strings, with everything summing to zero. Still none of the above has reconciled all four forces and therefore no TOE.

Best,

Pat

[Bogie]

Hi Bogie;

I voted for both and a few others. I believe in a cyclic universe, as I think you know, which means the mass/energy has always been around but gets recycled or reformed periodically, in a big bang, through God's design, using strings, with everything summing to zero. Still none of the above has reconciled all four forces and therefore no TOE.

Best,

Pat

Hi Prof; I noticed your multiple selections and they do seem to be consistent with your "idea" thread. Cosvis does distinguish between the physical and the eternal. That then makes his view seem like the physical universe is created by an eternal God and so the idea of a beginning of the physical realm is preceded by the eternal existence of God. He points out that God is eternal and His creation would therefore qualify as eternal.

As you know, I consider the physical universe and God to be one in the same and so when I say the physical universe has always existed I mean there was no physical beginning, no creation. I put an ongoing process in place of your cyclical universe, but both of our cosmologies include multiple Big Bangs. Your big bangs occur sequentially using the same energy over and over, while my big bangs occur here and there, now and then across the landscape of a greater universe that is characterized by a potential infinite number of arenas where bangs and crunches are governed by a process that operates within limits and thresholds. Both of our views are admittedly hard to grasp unless you consider the alternatives . The three choices of "something from nothing", "God did it", or "always existed" makes the eternal existence of the physical universe look better to me by comparison.

All three of us, Cosvis, you and I selected #1. You selected others including "God did it", and I am thinking that Cosvis would actually have selected the "God did it" along with #1 if he had noticed that multiple selections were allowed though I am just guessing about that.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Balance of Nothing reconciles everything.

[Profpat]

The Balance of Nothing reconciles everything.

But you didn't vote for that one Austin and is why I included it among my selections. I believe the positive energy equals the negative energy and gravitations negative energy equals radiations positve energy.

Also where is quantum gravity in the above list, as it appears the quantum particles are not effected by the laws of gravity, though they do have mass.

I guess that would be none of the above.

[Profpat]

Hi Bogie;

I also believe that God and the universe are ONE. It's a pantheistic thought, but I also believe in a Personal Loving God, in that you and I are personal and loving, and that essence comes from some source, and there is only ONE source to ALL

Best,

Pat

[vacuum-mechanics]

[QUOTE=vacuum-mechanics;
The first choice seems to be the correct one, because it closes to the conventional definition of TOE, i.e. unification of the four basic force of the nature! And according to the TOE it was believed that all natural phenomena (including mass and energy which are the players) were originated from these forces!
[/QUOTE]


Dear austintorn@aol.com and friends,

Someone may ask – do I believe in mainstream physicists? The answer is I believe in what they believed, but I do not believe in the way they do (to find TOE)! For my opinion, they are too hurrying to get it without considering whether their tools are complete enough to use for the job.

Mainstream physicists are so confident in relativity and quantum theories (tools) while they still can not answer some crucial problems of the theories. Indeed if they come back to reconsidering the tools, then they will get the correct solution!

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com .