Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150

From: George Hammond (nospam1_at_nospam.net)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:07:25 GMT

"Mark South" <marksouth@null.invalid> wrote in
message news:pan.2005.02.07.08.52.54.162910@null.invalid...

> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:49:02 +0000, George Hammond wrote:
>
> > And what Mark South, who actually DOES have a PhD in
> > relativity is doing sitting there and saying nothing... is another
> > pertinent matter.
>
> I don't have anything to add to your theory, and I'm far from convinced
> that you would welcome anything contributed by anyone else anyway.
>
> > I actually give you considerable credit for
> > merely having the courage to speak up in such a controversial
> > area.... while he sits there saying nothing.
>
> My contributions to relativity were dictated by fate to be in the areas of
> cosmology, fields, and gravitational waves. These were independent of
> proof of god.
> --
> Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen
>

[Hammond]
   Well since you are a PhD in Relativity, and interested in Cosmology,
I in fact DO have a basic Cosmology question to ask you.

  I would like to know if my understanding of the Big Bang
theory is essentially correct:
  It is my understanding that there is NOTHING in Einstein's theory
of Gravity (1915 plain vanilla GR) that predicts or explains the
totally "ad hoc" proposition of a gigantic "thermal explosion" known
as the "Big Bang". That in fact the proposal is made in a completely
"ad hoc" manner by "proposing" that a metric of the type:

 (1) ds^2 = -dt^2 + a(t)^2 dr^2 (R-W Metric)

ACTUALLY EXISTS where a(t) is an as yet unknown phenomenological
"spatial expansion factor", and then substituting this metric in the
Einstein field Eqns. and showing that it IN FACT IS an acceptable
solution of the EFE's (Friedmann 1922)... and then proceeding to
CONFIRM the existence of this "phenomenological metric" by
experimentally observing the real Universe (the Hubble redshift
for instance)... and thereby proving its actual real existence.

Now my question to you is: IS THAT SYNOPSIS
OF THE BIG BANG THEORY ESSENTIALLY CORRECT?

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

---
Ok.... my supposition is that this description of Big Bang theory
is in fact essentially correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
      IF SO.... I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU:
I have proposed that "perceptual reality"  (subjectively seen
reality" is actually controlled by an equation similar to Einstein's
field Equation, whereby:
(2)                G_uv = BGD   (the braingrowth deficit)
Note that this is entirely similar to Einstein's equation controlling
"actual physical reality":
(3)                G_uv = rho       (T_uv = rho for low velocity)
Where now the BGD is taking the place of rho the mass density.
This says there is a "curvature of subjective reality" caused by
the human BGD which is entirely similar to the "curvature of
physical reality" caused by mass.  BTW, this "curvature of
subjective reality" is nothing sophisticated... it is well known
for instance that a 5 year old child sees a much bigger and
faster world than an adult... all I am saying is that this effect
is in fact described by an "Einsteinian curvature of subjectively
seen reality".  And furthermore that this phenomena is known
popularly as "God".
Now some have asked:  "If the 'subjective reality' equation is
mathematically identical to the 'objective reality' equation,
then there must be a "mass model analog for God".  And that
is what the current controversy is about... what is the
"spacetime GR mass model" corresponding to the equation
for God?  It is expected that there MUST BE ONE since the
God equation is identical to Einstein's EFE... although it
is in "human perceptual space" rather than "physical
measurement space".
It is my contention that there is an "ad hoc expansion of subjective
reality" entirely SIMILAR to the ad hoc Big Bang expansion
in actual physical reality.... only now it is being caused by
BRAINGROWTH (e.g. childhood growth of the brain) and using
the same method Friedman used in 1922 to describe this expansion,
I propose that the Metric of "subjective reality" may be written as:
(4)             ds^2 = a(t')^2 [ -dt'^2 + dr^2 ]
which you will immediately recognize as the R-W Metric written
in terms of "conformal time", t' .  And once again, I JUSTIFY
this proposition the same way Friedman/Lamaitre/Einstein justified
Friedmann's expansion metric... by observing that the experimental
evidence CONFIRMS IT... that and the fact that the above equation
is already KNOWN to be a solution to the EFE's.
  Now there is a difference between the ordinary R-W metric (eqn 1)
and the "conformal time" R-W metric (eqn 4).... and that of course
is the substitution:
                      t = a(t) t'
which is a "coordinate transformation" which defines the "conformal
time" t' in terms of the proper time t .  This is merely a
"coordinate transformation" of standard
Big Bang theory.... which substitutes an arbitrary regauged time
parameter for the cosmic "proper time" of the ordinary R-W metric.
    However, I am proposing that BRAINGROWTH is not the same
as a "thermal expansion", and that in fact "conformal time" is actual
observer time in subjectively seen space... and this is due to the fact
that braingrowth actually increases mental speed (Intelligence) of the
growing person.  I claim that introducing this additional
"phenomenological ad hoc proposition", just like Friedmanns ad hoc
proposition, is JUSTIFIED by the fact that:
1.  Eqn. (4) satisfies Einstein's Field Equations.
2.  It is experimentally confirmed by the experimental
     evidence of perceptual space (Psychometry).
Therefore I am using the same rational that Friedmann/Lamatre/Einstein
used to justify the Big Bang R-W metric.
The upshot is that "God" is explained as a "conformal expansion of
subjectively seen reality".  And this is confirmed experimentally to
two decimal place accuracy by the experimental data of Psychometry.
   Now one FINAL point has to be mentioned.  With regard to human
growth... it is the HUMAN BODY (and brain) which is actually
growing (expanding) according to the relativistic equation
                     G_uv = BGD
What this means is that the human being will actually see a world
(reality) which is getting SMALLER and getting SLOWER as he
grows up... in exactly inverse proportion to the Big Bang expansion
of his perceptual reality... and experiment shows that this is what
is actually observed.
Anyway... my questions to you are:
1.  Is my synopsis of the conventional Big Bang theory
     factually correct?
2.  Can I assume the same justification for proposing a model
     whereby the "conformal R-W metric" obtains instead
     of the normal R-W metric, based simply on the fact
     that:
                       A. It satisfies the EFE's
                       B. It is confirmed by experiment
Finally... I know this is a lot to chew on... but ANY serious
comment you might make will certainly be EXTREMELY
INTERESTING considering your professional
qualifications.
PS:  If Dr. Dumse has anything to say about this, I would likewise
appreciate it... even though he appears more eager to act as an
adversarial critic rather than making constructive criticisms.
====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In the beginning?
    ... Do you know what happened before the big bang? ... Can you prove the existence of the "God" particle? ... You would like to think that you define reality, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: more questioning of the big bang
    ... and not an expansion of the matrix of time-space that such matter ... the words "big bang" do imply an explosion, ... implies creation, not a God, but creation ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: big bang v. creation
    ... and creation theory ... thing as reality, time, or the universe. ... The "Big Bang" refers to the beginning of the Universe ... "God is older than the Big Bang". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • questioning the big bang
    ... if the Universe were born of a big bang, ... expansion of order, not an expansion of chaos, or a reduction ... God, or deity (such God would have to belong to the set of all things, ... believe there is an alpha male of all species, that architects and ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT?: What Am I?
    ... I'm convinced there is no god that fits any of the common ... part of reality itself, I'm betting that we're incapable of forming a ... If you do not give a hypothetical creator - or the space where one goes ... Big Bang, but most people's interests aren't even on that scale. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast