Mormonism: technology, astronomy, and physics

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You can start with many theories, but catastrophe theory, once the vogue in the math world, positive castostrophe predictions based on six dimensional mathematics. Just because you're not aware of advanced mathematical suppositions, doesn't mean they don't exist or that they don't have validity. See link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory

Singularity theory is also fascinating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_theory

(Amazing that I once kinda understood this stuff).

Here is stuff on fourth dimensional hypercubes.

http://www.miqel.com/fractals_math_p...mensional.html

I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my ass, dear friend.

And here are questions about density, which I believe can also discuss folds.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=457217

http://infovis.cs.vt.edu/multid/

Lebowski or Brian can chime to confirm these theories rise and fall. The catastrophe theory was popular in the seventies and probably isn't right now. However, it's nothing about magic at all. Just admit it, you're ignorant of any of the theories discussed in advanced theoretical mathematics or physics. It's not that hard Seattle to admit ignorance. It's certainly not a lawyer trait, but sometimes it's the right thing to do.

And the folds in time and space make sense at the six dimensional level. Are you even aware of these concepts, before you ridicule them? Is it prudent to ridicule that which you don't even know?

Are subatomic particles, some of which are call quarks (spelling varies), capable of moving back in time? Theories abound, yet verifying is difficult. Quark theory provides interesting insights. What about Hawking radiation? How does matter behave on the event horizon? There is probably more science to be learned than what we know. And the theoricists are usually way out ahead of the practical scientists. How long did it take before they solved Fermat's Last Theorem?

Hawking radiation. Isn't that the idea that even black holes are emitting energy in the form of radiation? Love that stuff.

[Archaea]

Yes.

Theoretical physics is always in advance of practical applications. Sometimes it's proven wrong. Perhaps oft times.

Catastrophe theory hasn't yielded useful predictions. That's why it's fallen into disfavor.

However, the theory is sound.

I always wondered how God could know the future without affecting your free will.

The folds in space time, theorized through catastrophe theory, and singularity theory, help explain a potential, and mathematically provable possibility.

Hawking radiation, at least in theory, shows that matter and what is observable, is relative to the parameters set.

I wish I could still remember the math, but it is well over two decades beyond me and I'm certain, it is advanced beyond my meager abilities. Sometimes I wish I had become a great mathematician. However, my mind was never as good as those guys you would talk to at Cal Tech or MIT or even Oxford.

I have beheld some great minds, in the fields of medicine, computer scient, to a lesser extent law, but the minds I have beheld in physics and math, truly amaze me. Lawyers know people, an amazing feat in itself. Physicists know the mind of God. At least in small part.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm not surprised a real scientist like Lobewski doesn't deign to participate in this discussion.

Aha. So you wait until it degenerates into a pissing contest and then invite me to join in? No thanks, pardner.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think we both may have generalized a bit too much about how religious were the founding fathers. Tom Paine for one was seemingly what Lobewski would call an atheist.

You know, When I first read this post I hadn't the foggiest who Lobewski was. I assumed that it was some eastern European philospher I had never heard of and, not wanting to once again face my ignorance in detail, I decided to just let this go. I now realize you meant our very own, the dude abides, lebowski.

Given my absurdly poor typing, I probabyl deserved this.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Aha. So you wait until it degenerates into a pissing contest and then invite me to join in? No thanks, pardner.

I would like you to help me with the math on a six dimensional world and how to view a six dimensional hypercube. Or maybe you could just start with a fourth dimensional hypercube. Try as I might it remains very difficult for this simple mind. Any hints, maestro?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I would like you to help me with the math on a six dimensional world and how to view a six dimensional hypercube. Or maybe you could just start with a fourth dimensional hypercube. Try as I might it remains very difficult for this simple mind. Any hints, maestro?

In all fairness, you two should share the Nobel Prize money with the rest of us. Give Waters the biggest slice. I figure an equation that demonstrates the existence of God should be a slam dunk.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

In all fairness, you two should share the Nobel Prize money with the rest of us. Give Waters the biggest slice. I figure an equation that demonstrates the existence of God should be a slam dunk.

I only want a proof or proofs that demonstrate how God could feasibly operate. Even Steve Hawking considers physics and math the mind of God.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I only want a proof or proofs that demonstrate how God could feasibly operate. Even Steve Hawking considers physics and math the mind of God.

Steve Hawking abhors this kind of talk. His latest book is an assault on all religions. Some critics even found it a little too angry and over the top in that regard.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Steve Hawking abhors this kind of talk. His latest book is an assault on all religions. Some critics even found it a little too angry and over the top in that regard.

I kind quote some of his earlier writings to the contrary. He is a strange duck, but a magnificient physics mind. Here is a man who can barely move, but divorces his long time nurse. What does he hope to accomplish by this?

You can use bits and pieces of all minds to understand our physical world.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Joseph Smith's cosmology simply reflects his understanding of science as it was developed in his time. Just like the Catholics pre-Copernicus.

Exaclty, and when Brigham Young mentioned inhabitants of the moon and sun, he did so because it was a popular theory at the time (regarding the moon, at least) and not due to some revelation.

"We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. "

http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_13/JD13-268.html