Wake up, nutball. This dead thread is two years old.

Go dig a hole and live in it. Tipler’s end of the world is two years closer!

I swear, the insane shouldn’t be allowed the internet. It’s like crack to them.

“Newton, like many historicist prophetic commentators of his age, believed that the prophetic time periods 1260, 1290, 1335 and 2300 days actually represent 1260, 1290, 1335 and 2300 years using the “day-for-a-year principle”.”

http://www.isaac-newton.org/update.html

Tipler’s ideas sound at best historicism, just like Newton’s theological predictions because they aren’t falsifiable in a scientific fashion. The previous comment provides a misplaced appeal to scientific authority (when Newton wasn’t using science to make his theological predictions) instead of give scientific evidence and also uses a combination of straw man and ad hominem arguments. Usually when someone does that I think it is out of desperation because of the lack of scientific rigor supporting the thesis.

Western academia in no small part helped enable those mass-slaughters with its faithful adoration of those regimes and the socialist ideologies upon which they were founded. Instead of shining a spotlight on the tyranny and horrors of Communism (and thereby helping to diminish it by focusing world attention on it), they instead acted as Communism’s intellectual bodyguards. Still to this day not much is said in academia or the major media about the biggest mass-slaughters by far in human history.

Concerning the Omega Point Theory:

The known laws of physics (i.e., general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Extended Standard Model of particle physics) force us to the conclusion that computational resources in the universe must diverge to infinity (i.e., in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times). The final state of infinite informational capacity (which is never reached in experiential time) is identified as being God.

For much more on the technical details of the above, see the below resources:

F. J. Tipler, “The structure of the world from pure numbers,” Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as “Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything,” arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

“Omega Point (Tipler),” Wikipedia, January 6, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=182549075

“Frank J. Tipler,” Wikipedia, January 5, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=182407923

Theophysics http://geocities.com/theophysics/

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to invent tenuous physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking’s paper on the black hole information issue which is dependant on the conjectured string theory-based AdS/CFT correspondence (anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence). (See S. W. Hawking, “Information loss in black holes,” Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 [October 2005] http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171 .)

That is to say, Prof. Hawking’s paper is based upon invented and unconfirmed laws of physics. It’s an impressive testament to the Omega Point Theory’s correctness, as Hawking realizes that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking knows quite well that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he’s forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe ending in finite time via collapse.

So we have confirmation from no less than Hawking himself that one can’t get around the universe ending in a collapse in finite time if one sticks to the known laws of physics. The only way to get around that is to invent new laws of physics.

Some have suggested that the universe’s current acceleration of its expansion obviates the Omega Point. But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in “Geometry and Destiny” (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

There’s a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe’s collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as B – L is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

Prof. Tipler’s above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper also demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn’t realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). When combined with the Standard Model, the result is a Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.

Moot means “settled.” You should look words up before using them.

moot –adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical

Are you aware of how stupid you sound?

hmmm…

Your post is just bile. Do you actually have an intelligent point to make?

Sure these atheist buffoons are pillorying Tipler, but that’s the point of this particular blog post. As for the doubts about Heaven do you have any objective evidence for Heaven you’d care to share with us? If Tipler is right then you’re about 10 quadrillion years too early.

Someone has dragged out the Shroud of Turin’s supposed falsification by carbon dating, but if they’d bothered to read any recent literature on the subject they might have found the carbon dating has been cast into serious doubt – not because it was wrong, but because the sample came from a Medieval patchwork repair on the Shroud. The sample region is chemically and optically (in UV) distinct from the rest of the material, so the supposed debunking has been debunked. Other chemical based tests on the Shroud date it to between 3,000 – 1,300 years old i.e. probably as old as it is claimed to be.

Is JC’s rising from the dead proven then? No. There will always be room for doubt or for faith. But there is no room for absurdities like a “mythical Christ” who didn’t exist in history. Jesus is as real as any other historical figure, but you can either accept the message or you can reject the messengers as untrustworthy. Considering the hypocrisy of so many Christians I can understand why the second option is so popular.

Adam

“You can ask an atheist a similar question: Why don’t you want to believe in Heaven? And the truth is I would love to believe in Heaven. I just don’t see any evidence that Heaven actually exists. It’s not a question of “wanting” it to exist.”
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Are you aware of how stupid you sound? Athiests “seeing God as a malevolent being”? That’s called gnosticism, somewhat different than atheism. “… answer prayers and give you real hope”? As opposed to what, “unreal” hope? “Horrible”? “Inaccurate”? “Moot”????? Moot means “settled.” You should look words up before using them.
Do you believe life exists elsewhere in the universe? I suspect you do… probably having been weaned on science fiction movies. What “evidence” do you have that there are aliens out there??? as opposed to, say, Heaven?
What a pack of morons! You take on someone whose garment you are not fit to touch! Rip him a new one? Ha! Not even in an alternate universe of your own design! Stick with TV, or whatever it is that you rely on for your muddled facts. You’re way out of your depth.
Leo Bradley