Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Praying to the Father; thoughts on the Holy Spirit & the Trinity Message-ID: <1272@utastro.UUCP> Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 13:35:11 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.1272 Posted: Mon Sep 22 13:35:11 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 00:04:25 EDT References: <7568@tekecs.UUCP> <1503@mtx5a.UUCP> <7616@tekecs.UUCP> <257@prometheus.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 114 Keywords: prays, Trinity, Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Which? Xref: linus net.religion.christian:4709 talk.religion.misc:221 In article <257@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: > ... > What was particularly upsetting to Houlahan was the number of new > definitions and that no "explanation" was given. The reason for that > was that this hypothesis grew out of problems in physics and cosmology > and not religion, so it's not exactly appropriate for this news group. The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology - in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum. > Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look > around for "strange things" to put in these strange places. The generalized > physics of the substances can be interpolated from ordinary physics and > calculus. I'll bet. > ... The stuff of one space is infinitely dense while the stuff of > our space and two space is not. Also only one object can exist in one > space. That's for two reasons: There are no gradients or "edges"; and > since there is no existing lesser dimension, it can't be cut or "divided" > into segments like lines in two space can. Consequently, only a single > entity can occupy one dimensional space. Incidentally, zero dimension is > a trivial or null space (lines are able to be cut in two space because > lines can "intersect"). This is garbage for the following reasons: - You are confusing mathematical constructs - lines, surfaces, volumes- which are used to MODEL the physical world, with the physical world. - Mathematically, a line perhaps may be treated as being infinitely thin, however in physics no substance is known to be infinitely thin. Physicists are limited in their ability to resolve detail by the famous Uncertainty Principle. The nearest physical construct you could construct would be to refer to a line of particles, however there are no infinitely small particles that I'm aware of. - A 1-dimensional system can have gradients along it. - A 1-dimensional system can have edges i.e. {x| 0.0 <= x <= 1.0} has edges at 0.0 and 1.0. - A 1-dimensional system can be cut and divided ie the previous set can be partitioned into {x | 0.0 <= x <= 0.5} and {x| 0.5 < x <= 1.0}. - "can" and "might" are not the same. Even if we were to go off the deep end and go along with you, why SHOULD an "entity" exist there? But since a line can be partitioned ad infinitum, your "logic" now allows for an infinite number of "entities". - Even if you don't like the previous objection you are not off the hook. There are an infinite number of n-spaces that can fit into an m-space if m > n (ignoring partions for the present). This still permits an infinite number of your infinite density entities to exist. To some extent I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I am assuming that you understand that lines are 1-dim objects, points have zero dim. etc. in spite of the fact that there is evidence that you are confused even at this level. If this is the case I won't press the edge/gradient/partition objections above. > Then too we can estimate the "time" characteristics of this substance. > This is "interpolation" from the time characteristics of ordinary matter, > but it seems not at all unreasonable. That is that since the matter has > "infinite density" time passes at a "zero" rate. How did you "interpolate" this result from "time characteristics of ordinary matter"? What are the "time characteristics of ordinary matter"? >...OR as I explained else > where, it means that the "real present time" expands in width infinitely > into both the future and the past. Really? Can you give us an example of "artifical present time"? Or of time that doesn't "expand in width"? > Anyway, the problem I was trying to solve had nothing to do with "where's > GOD or what's the Trinity", it had to do with the source for the "energy > /information" of the big bang. And, it looks like it came from a decay of > a chunk of "two space" NOT GOD. Well sort of NOT... it's that old trickle > down theory, since 2 space and hypermatter "spilled forth" from 1-space, it > all can be traced backed to GOD the Ultimate source. Then too since time > is quantized, information frames are refreshed at enormous rates, so that > the Creator has his finger on things always. Another "religous" result is > that there has to have been at least two creations. Try to find that in > the Bible! > > On the science side, there are some really new, predictable and "measurable" > things that fall out like the magnetic field densities on rapidly spinning > and precessing neutron stars, that "multinegative nucleii" (Helium and > heavier) are unstable and can NOT exist, and a few other nifty little > goodies. As a result of your "cosmology" or that which astronomers and physicists dabble in? > So what if it's spooky that substance can be interpolated in both spaces > and that the one space substance looks DIVINE. > > These SEVEN definitions could be generlized to a couple of simple statements. > Do you want to try if for us Houlihan. I don't have to try and make sense of someone else's garbage. > "Oh dear, I thought the two lesser spaces were empty." > "Shucks, Come to think of it > I never even gave it a thought." You can say that again. Padraig Houlahan.