To a democrat, a king has no glory. To a loyalist, he does.

To a democrat, the throne is an expensive piece of asset, to show conspicuous consumption.

To a loyalist, a throne is is the king's glory.

The king's glory is given to him by god.

A king can't give himself his own glory.

A glory can be get by one only if a superior gives it to one. Nobody can give himself glory. Much like a peon can't promote himself to president of the bank trust he works at as a janitor, by himself alone. Promotions, raises, etc. for any one given person must come from above. Even congressmen can't give each individually a raise to himself, they must ask congress, that they are part of, to give each individual member a raise. A member of congress alone by himself can't give himself a raise in salary that he gets as a member of congress.

God can't be glorified without being given the throne as his glory by some superior. This is not possible.

If god is glorified, then someone else has given him the glory. Which must be a superior to god.

If this superior is man, a mass of believers, then it is truly necessary that man made god, man gave Him the glory and the power.

Now god, having that power, created the univese.

But he created the universe before man gave him the glory and the power.

So he could not possibly have created the universe.

This tells us that that system of who created whom has a failure in its logical flow.

Therefore we must accept that either god does not exist, or man does not exist.

But man exists.

Therefore god does not exist.

This can only be reversed if we reject the original assumption.

The original assumption was, that the universe is the glory of god which he uses to impress us, and that's why He made it.

So since this original assumption is false, we are still facing ourselves with the same unanswered enormous question: since god can only exist if the universe is not his glory which he uses to impress man, then why on earth did he create a universe that huge and big?

Imagine a pile of 2x4s, that have been cut into 12" sections. You take those pieces and place them into a continuous and unbroken line end to end. Then someone comes along and claims that there is room to put another 12" section between any two of the pieces...

Theories are what they are, statements not absolutes in life. Theories are what we have until new facts surface and old theories discredited, replaced but not by all - each to its own. No one has the knowledge to answer all questions. It is a quest of man to find out. Life is about learning, continuous learning. Mankinds' persceptives will continually change and shift with new facts.

If you google "Hubbbles Space Telescope" many listings will appear to view images of the universe in its unending, uncomprehensible vastness. In April 1990 images started to appear, new knowledge came forth. Man's persceptive reshaped by the findins from the confines of this world though the eyes of Hubbles Space Telescope.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/ (see other sites!)


We can debate, disagree or agree with each other, take it or leave it what each other has to say. It is basically each to its own to come to their own conculsion being we are not all the same genetically nor brought up in the same type or of the same environmental factors. Each to his own conclusion based on what each has been given and through their own continous learning each will derive to their own beliefs or have their own theory. We can all think for ourselves in this day and age by reason and with logic through intelligence, whether with or without faith.

For those with faith, have intelligence, the same as, those without faith, whereby both use reason and logic. Religion is a science. A component of Religion is an additional realm, the spiritual realm added to the existence of a three demenional world and universe we live in. How are we to know until proven this spiritual realm does not exist throughout the universe. I cannot deny there is not either a spiritual realm through reason or logic, it has not been disproved either and it seems it cannot be either.

To this day there is said to be a spiritual realm playing a role in life. The world may end one day but the Universe I believe will continue on for eternity. Check out the Hubbles website to see how this universe is actively, dying, living and giving new birth or formations. It is an evolving what appears to be unending existence.

I find it very hard to believe viewing the universe as it is seen today that earth is the only planet throughout the great vastness of this universe upon which the planet earth is whereby life exists. The human body is made up of elements found throughout the universe and of earth, and I believe evolution does play a part in our existence as well as, an additional dimension, a spiritual realm added. I do not believe in man made doctrines of religions but have come to my develop my own theology (and not derived from new age sprituality). I believe too a new theory from the results of Hubbles' images is probable in time, a new theory to come forth until further knowledge is gleaned, for, mankind through man's quest to find answers.

spider the jews are actually judeans also the hebrews stole stories from the sumerians and babylonians,changed names made many gods into one god and manipulated the stories therefore you have jews.I could care less if the jews didn't believe in the afterlife if they didn't they were right but now it is believed there is not based on fact but by a book and claims of ghost.

In geometry and mathematics, we deal with absolutes and air tight logical arguments. In those fields, it is possible to construct an argument that shows something to be definitely, absolutely true (not in reality, but in mathematics).

You are making a geometric argument, and in between your assumptions and your conclusions I agree (as stated in my first post on the topic) that your argument is valid, and, within the geometric framework, perfectly correct.

I submit that the whole argument, when applied to reality, may (or may not) be based on a subtly (but critically) wrong understanding of what the 'planck length' really means - and it is that question which I wish to investigate...when i have time.

I think it matters. If we are going to be amateur armchair physicist debating this, we should (or at least i want to) be sure i'm working with a correct understanding of the planck length.


Now regarding "definite knowledge"...

In your early response to my questioning of your claim, you seemed to over-estimate the strength of my intended response - i wasn't refuting your conclusion, just questioning the applicability of that geometric argument, and the interpretation of the planck length which was assumed for the argument.

Now that we've cleared up that up, you seem (?) to be underestimating the strength of my claim. I'm not just saying "oh, we can never really know" (which is how I take your comments in your 8:39 post). I'm saying that we can know, and also that I think our species already knows. Also, if the conclusion from the geometric argument is wrong - I want to learn for myself exactly where in breaks down. Its definitely not within the geometric argument itself - mathematically you are correct.

I'm not trying to get you to capitulate and say that we cannot be absolutely certain. I want to know the true implications of the planck length. I assume that you would also want to know; or at least be willing to critique whatever it is that i come to think that i know.

There are multiple possible ways of interpreting 'reality doesn't get more granular than the planck length'.

I think it would be wiser for me to read up on it rather than discuss those hypotheticals... but I can't resist pointing out that: if you think that the planck length defines a specific finite set of allowable position along a line, this still leaves open the question of what the allowable positions might look like in 3d.

Would it be a body-centered-cubic arrangement? Or something else?

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

Nowhere in anything that I recall reading or hearing about the planck length did anyone seriously consider the proposition that all of reality could be mapped to a defined grid (or bcc pattern) like that. But, my understanding is very outdated. If it were bcc (or any definable, specific and repeating arrangement of points), then Wux is right in suggesting a possible flaw in his argument was assuming infinite allowable angles - bcc (and all repeating arrangements) only allows a finite set of angles.

Personally, I suspect that this (repeating, defined positions) is also the wrong way to think of the planck length... it is not 'only a minimum travel distance', nor is it a basis for establishing a kind of 'grid (or bcc) of predefined allowable positions'. But i'll try now to stop speculating and try to find the time to go read up on it.

[Personally, I suspect that this (repeating, defined positions) is also the wrong way to think of the planck length... it is not 'only a minimum travel distance', nor is it a basis for establishing a kind of 'grid (or bcc) of predefined allowable positions'. But i'll try now to stop speculating and try to find the time to go read up on it.Quote]


In my curiosity of "what is Planck lenght" some quick info on a Utube video on Planck length, will give you a better picture,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEL3Amxf8eI

More from Professor Laurence Eaves about the Planck Length. Main video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y8HgmOoLCM

There are 1.e+96 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000) Planck lengths in a cubic centimeter.

I'm either being very dense here or you guys are way over my head. What's is so fascinating about this? What does geometry have to do with it? No matter what twists and turns you try to make, you can't get any smaller than a Planck length and you can't find any space between them. There is a finite (but admittedly incredibly large number) of points on a pool table and in the universe. All you have to understand is that there is that according to science, there is a minimum size in the universe. This means that there cannot be an infinite number of points in any closed space.

But this rabbit hole is an offshoot of the original rabbit hole. The last time I checked, pool tables have a flat surface. So 3D doesn't come into the picture, it's only 2D.

That brings us to around 4.0328e+66 points on a competition sized billiards table. That's a lot, but it's not infinite.

jeez, yall still arguing about pool tables and atoms? which one signifies creation and which one signifies evolution?

Both...

Pool table is comprised of Atoms frozen into a time bubble by a tool and a craftsman...

yet eventually its atoms will return to dust and join back into Universal Evolution.

That seems to be one of the problems in getting this concept across. If you were small enough that a proton (not even a whole atom, just a single proton) were the size of the earth to you, you still couldn't see a Planck length. Atoms are gigantic compared to a Planck length.

For such a unit to be used to measure reality it must also conform to reality.

What happens to the 'length' when subjected to a mass field?

Does it stretch or compress as does time (in a field)?

Does it follow the twisted contours of the folds that exist at the poles of a Singularity?

Maybe the name is confusing? A Planck Length is a single point. It has no width or depth. A singularity is 1 Planck length in size. While a black hole can compress or stretch matter, it doesn't affect Planck Length. When space is compressed or stretched, it's the space between the particles that is changed. Nothing can be smaller than a Planck length and the size of a Planck length doesn't change based on changes to compression or expansion of space.

The explanation makes not sense to me.

Any point that has a 'size' has length and breadth else it could not exist in reality as we know it.

If space is compressed and the 'length' and 'breadth' changes, measureing it by a measureing device such a you describe would not yeild accurate results...

Except for areas with no mass.

There are few areas within our known universe that contain no mass fields.

You mentioned "singularity", so you are already aware of the concept. A singularity is a point in space. It is not three dimensional, it's one dimensional. It has no width, no depth and the very smallest amount of length. It's a single dot and nothing more.

I would guess that all of the incredibly vast and empty spaces between galaxies would have no mass fields.

A 'one dimensional' point would do absolutely nothing to three dimensional space.

In order for such a point to create a gravitational vortex such as has been observed it must at least be 'multi dimensional' at the point of observance within reality. (it leaves a 'signature' therefore at least a portion of it is in this Reality).

Else it would be unseen in either the world of Reality or the Reality of Mathmatics.

Okay, I can't discuss this with you. You can't just reject modern science on a whim. To my knowledge there isn't even any debate on if singularities can exist. It's just about as close to settled science as science gets.

Singularity is a word scientist use to say "we don't have a clue".It's beyond human intelligence basically.I mean you can sugar coat it and do want you want with the word but technically it still means they are clueless.