gravity

It was a play off of golden number's "mushroom". My nuke looked more like the horta, a creature from Star Trek. It really had no impact and added nothing to the discussion. My bad. So as to make amends and redeem myself allow me to contribute this: You mentioned energy fields. Photons would be an excellent example. All wavelengths of the EM spectrum.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Theodoric, forgive me for taking so long to reply, but I had to reread portions of Davie's book, since I was suprised by his statments you cited. He made these statements in 2007, the book was published in 2006.
His position has changed since the book, maybe because of pressure from the majority of scienctists.If you will read his Afterword: Ultilmate Explanation of the Question of Existence pp.261-269, you will understand my suprise.Summarizing the main positions of the book he explained and commented on each position.A. The Absurd Universe.
The Universe is mysterious and just happened to permit life. There is no purpose to it.
There is no God, no designer, no teleological principle.
This position he says is probably held by the majority of scientists.B. the Unique Universe.
A unified theory of everything. It is mostly unchangeable. If there is a God this God has nothing to do with the theory or universe.C. The Multiverse.
A theory of multiple cosmic entities and our universe one of many just happened to be just right for life.D. Intelligent Design.
Monotheistic religious view that God created & designed universe to be suitable for life.E. The life Principle.
The unverse arose from laws or principles that constrained it to evolve toward life and mind. It is Teleological in nature. He says this theory is regarded by atheistic scientists as really asserting the guiding hand of God.F. The sefl explaining Universe.
The universe explains itself, is self contained and creates itself.G. The fake universe.
We are living in a simulation, and what we take to be the real world is a virtual reality show.PP267-268
'My own inclinations, it will be clear, lie in the directions of E and F, although there are many details to be worked out. I do take life, mind, and purpose seriously, and I concede that the universe at least appears to be designed with a high level of ingenuity. I cannot accept these features as a package of marvels that just happen to be, that exist reasonlessly. It seems to me that there is a genuine scheme of things--the universe is "about" somethng. But I am equally uneasy about dumping the whole set of problems in the lap of an arbitrary god or abandoning all further thought and declaring existence ultimately to be a mystery."Although he "inclines" to nature, he sounds very much like Schoroeder, and I believe supports most of Schroeder's postions.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

I don't think it woult take any form we could observe. We then we are in the realm of supernatural or whatever.

These are coming from disindigrating matter. They are just results.

Sorry to say, but this critique of Schroeder is as much bullshit as some of the stuff that Schroeder expels. There is nothing wrong with the given equation, and suitably re-written gives the Compton wavelength for a particle, assuming m is the rest-mass. I haven't read the relevant Schroeder work, so I cannot say in what context he was using this, but Perakh's complaint appears completely unjustified. Perakh also appears very juvenile in various other areas - such as his complaints about the use of centrifugal force and the rest-frame of a photon.This is the problem when real physicists are too busy and too jaded to be bothered countering mumbo-jumbo - the job gets picked up by those insufficeintly qualified/experienced to do the job.Now Oser does a reasonable job, as one would hope given his background, but even here his critique is a little off perfect in a few areas...

I can assure you, from both a personal and professional perspective, that Paul Davies sounds nothing like Schroeder and would support very few of Schroeder's positions.

What you believe means nothing, as we have his own words that dispute this. If you want to misinterpret him fine, but don't pass off your misinterpretations as his meaning.

So the energy comes from matter? Isn't this the opposite of what you were trying to say originally?Besides that, your response is nonsense. It is not necessary to disintegrate matter to produce EM radiation. Accelerating a charged particle is sufficient.

Which is actually the same process, with just a flip of space and time

What I mean by "he sounds like Schroeder" is that his view of the universe is that it is Teleological, with purpose, and he does not agree with the majority of scientists that there is no design or purpose or point to it all.He chooses natural causes, Schroeder and I believe in God as the cause and at this point in time neither of us can be proven wrong.

I will accept cavedrivers rebuttal in re the equation.

I am discussing God, a supernatural being, omnipotent, and therefore God does exist before human time.

quote:

---

I am discussing God, a supernatural being, omnipotent, and therefore God does exist before human time.

---

What on earth is "human time" and why is it relevant ?Quite frankly you seem to be arguing that supernaturalism is nonsense and only the deluded could believe it. I wouldn't go that far myself, but it's the clear message I'm getting from your posts.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

How does "therefore" get into that sentence?

Let me try to clear this up one last time. In reply to your point above, I was trying to clarify that Oser was assuming there was no time prior to the BB.
My position is, That a supernatural being, God, exists before the time of the BB and thus could have created the universe before the time started by the BB. Quite the contrary I have stated several times on this board that my God is the God of the Roman Catholic Church. That God is Omnipotent and was a supernatural being before the BB. So I am not arguing that supernaturalism is nonsense. Hope this clears up my position.