The Geometry of Christ (Physics of Christianity)

[bjjones37]

It implies in the Bible that after Jesus was resurrected that he seemed to be able to pass through solid walls. I would like to examine that phenomenon. Fundamentally limited as our perceptions are to three dimensions, it is difficult for us to perceive of four or five dimensional space, so we must do so by allegory. Imagine if you will a line segment. A line segment is composed of an indeterminate number of points.
( I say indeterminate because I cannot define an infinite number of points in a line segment of finite length unless the points were infinitely small. )
It requires a finite amount of time to go from one point to the next. Thus travel in a linear direction takes a given amount of time - the further the distance the, the greater the time. Now say this line segment is warped so that line segment intersects. For a one dimensional creature this intersection would be impossible to see. It would have to travel the entire length of the line segment to get from one end to the other. But for a creature which could perceive two dimensions, it could move at an angle from the line segment to the adjacent intersection point and bypass much of the segment to a point further along. If we could see in a four dimensional direction, we could bypass the three dimensional distances and use those hidden doorways to take a ‘shortcut’. You may claim that these shortcuts do not exist. Consider the properties of light. It has no mass, therefore should not be influenced by the affects of gravity – f=ma or force = mass times acceleration. As light has no mass, gravity should have no effect upon it. Yet Einstein clearly predicted how that light would curve around a large mass as though being affected by the effects of gravity. It was not the light that curved, it is still following the line. It is space itself that is deformed, or warped. It we could see the intersection with another three dimensional plane as caused by this warpage of space and perceive that fourth (or fifth or whatever) dimensional direction we could take a shortcut in much the same way or even appear to go through walls ourselves. There does appear to be an example of this in nature. It is supposed to be impossible of a particle to move faster than light. Experiments which have attempted to accelerate electrons faster than light have resulted in temporary particulate growth (increased mass) rather than FTL acceleration. Yet tachyons routinely move faster than light, and indeed, seem incapable of going any slower. I submit to you that they are simple following a series of intersections that we cannot perceive. Jesus never made any claim that he walked through the wall. I submit to you that he simply used a multidimensional door.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

bjjones37 wrote:
Jesus never made any claim that he walked through the wall. I submit to you that he simply used a multidimensional door.
Jesus never made any claim to be a god or anything like divine being, so why would he do this?
I rather think the writer or translator got a bit too enthusiastic while writing/translating these happenings, if it happened at all :-/

[bjjones37]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

bjjones37 wrote:
Jesus never made any claim that he walked through the wall. I submit to you that he simply used a multidimensional door.
Jesus never made any claim to be a god or anything like divine being, so why would he do this?

He did say "I and my father are one" and "If you have seen me, you have seen the father". He was talking about God.
And I do love physics. :-)

[Karlos]

Perhaps the basic problems are in the words "implies" and "seemed"...

They aren't exactly concrete. Interesting theory, however :-)

[bloodline]

Karlos wrote:
Perhaps the basic problems are in the words "implies" and "seemed"...

They aren't exactly concrete. Interesting theory, however :-)

Interesting... but it's no wanking sock :-P

[bjjones37]

Karlos wrote:
Perhaps the basic problems are in the words "implies" and "seemed"...

They aren't exactly concrete. Interesting theory, however :-)

Not trying to state facts right now, just propose possible theories (for the fun of it.) :-)

[Karlos]

@bloodline

Now, now Matt. There's no need to thrust in the sock at every available opportunity. Show some decorum, dear boy...










;-)

[Karlos]

bjjones37 wrote:
Not trying to state facts right now, just propose possible theories (for the fun of it.) :-)

Yes, I realised that. Carry on :-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

bjjones37 wrote:
He did say "I and my father are one" and "If you have seen me, you have seen the father". He was talking about God.
And I do love physics. :-) Isn't it more like that "we're a part of god" since we're created to the likes of god? Some interpret this sentence as a physical lookalike, and then they let grow their beard, but I think christian belief meant it more like the spirituality of humanity is initially the lookalike of god (that is, before humanity sinned), and that after we die we return to god (if we reckognised our sins and so).

[Karlos]

@Speel

I always interpeted the "in the likeness of God" as meaning we have some similar abstract attributes, such as creativity etc. not a physical resemblance.

[bjjones37]

Karlos wrote:

Yes, I realised that. Carry on :-)

Don't forget, you offered. :-)

Let's go a dimension up. Suppose a circle intercepts a line segment. The One dimensional creature would intially see a single point, which in turn spilts into two points and start spreading further and further apart, then closer and closer together until it rejoins into one dot and disappears. If it were a disk, it would appear as a line dot which turned into a line segment which started growing progressively larger, then shrinking progressively smaller until it disappears altogether. When the poor widow lady in the Old Testament was in debt and starving, all she had was a pot of oil. The prophet told her to borrow a bunch of pots and fill them all up from the one pot she had. Then she could sell the oil to pay off her debts and live off of the rest until the famine was over. That oil apparently took on a temporary multidimensional quality, put out more and more oil until the other pots were all full.

There is a moral to this by the way - the more I give to others, the more I seem to have.
:-)

[bjjones37]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Isn't it more like that "we're a part of god" since we're created to the likes of god? Some interpret this sentence as a physical lookalike, and then they let grow their beard, but I think christian belief meant it more like the spirituality of humanity is initially the lookalike of god (that is, before humanity sinned), and that after we die we return to god (if we reckognised our sins and so).

I do believe that there is a part of God which animates us and gives us life, the breath that he breathed into Adam. The word for spirit actually means wind or breath. The Bible calls both Adam and Jesus a son of God. But only Jesus is ever referred to as being 'one' with God. Also it says in John that "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God." "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

Personally I have no idea what God looks like, but apparently, he being inherently multidimensional, the three dimensional perception of him looks like a man, at least from one perspective.

[bloodline]

bjjones37 wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Isn't it more like that "we're a part of god" since we're created to the likes of god? Some interpret this sentence as a physical lookalike, and then they let grow their beard, but I think christian belief meant it more like the spirituality of humanity is initially the lookalike of god (that is, before humanity sinned), and that after we die we return to god (if we reckognised our sins and so).

I do believe that there is a part of God which animates us and gives us life, the breath that he breathed into Adam. The word for spirit actually means wind or breath. The Bible calls both Adam and Jesus a son of God. But only Jesus is ever referred to as being 'one' with God. Also it says in John that "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God." "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

Personally I have no idea what God looks like, but apparently, he being inherently multidimensional, the three dimensional perception of him looks like a man, at least from one perspective.

Um... you had probably better read up about the M-Theory :-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

bjjones37 wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Isn't it more like that "we're a part of god" since we're created to the likes of god? Some interpret this sentence as a physical lookalike, and then they let grow their beard, but I think christian belief meant it more like the spirituality of humanity is initially the lookalike of god (that is, before humanity sinned), and that after we die we return to god (if we reckognised our sins and so).

I do believe that there is a part of God which animates us and gives us life, the breath that he breathed into Adam. The word for spirit actually means wind or breath. The Bible calls both Adam and Jesus a son of God. But only Jesus is ever referred to as being 'one' with God. Also it says in John that "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God." "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

Personally I have no idea what God looks like, but apparently, he being inherently multidimensional, the three dimensional perception of him looks like a man, at least from one perspective. but isn't it the way that if you live your life like Jesus did, you will become one with god again?

[bjjones37]

bloodline wrote:

Um... you had probably better read up about the M-Theory :-)

Good sources are so hard to find. :-)

Consider for a moment the problem of perception. Remember the three blind men and the elephant. One grabbed the tail and said it was like a rope. Another grabbed the trunk and said it was like a snake. The third felt the side and said it was like a wall. How would I appear to a tapeworm? Like an intestine. :-)

All we perceive are the reflections of photons off of the three dimensional surface of something, yet there is so much more to it than that. The same is true of God. We try to judge him (naturally) from the stand point of human perception and experience, forgetting that he is not human and did not originate from Earth.

[Cymric]

First, our senses are fourdimensional, as we perceive time as well. That doesn't change much in the rest of your argument, save for the fact that all dimensions you mentioned are increased by one.

Second, warping of space-time is caused by the presence of matter. I would not go as far as to call 'matter' the result of intersections with other and unperceived dimensions. The hypothesis is quite unfalsifiable, and thus very unscientific.

Third, we cannot observe tachyons in normal space-time, because of the way nature works for us. The fact that for humans the speed of light is a maximum places certain restrictions on what we can observe and what not. To observe a tachyon we would in fact need a tachyon, resulting in a classical chicken-and-egg problem. Alternatively, if we can observe a tachyon 'just like that', that implies that some of our most tested theories are utterly wrong. And I mean utterly, as in '1+1 = 3'-kind-of-wrong.

In addition, there is the small matter of Cerenkov radiation: any particle moving faster than light in a given medium produces an electromagnetical shockwave causing it to lose energy and slow down. The principle is somewhat equivalent to the shockwave of an airplane going faster than the speed of sound. It is the reason nuclear reactors have this beautiful blue glow around them: you're seeing the braking effect of electrons going faster than light. Tachyons would therefore always go infinitesimally faster than c (the speed of light) and radiate no observable amount of energy because they'd already lost nearly all of it moments after their conception.

I haven't even begun to speculate what happens when quantum effects step in. A tachyon would at some point have one quantum of energy to lose before its speed hits c, but it can never travel at c, otherwise it isn't a tachyon any longer. Thinking about this ties my brain in knots ;-).

Third, if Jesus used a multidimensional door to get out of the closed grave, he had phenomenal powers at his command. Some people have tried to come up with a few numbers about energy usage for practical space-time manipulation. I think they even dwarf the energy output of a full-blown gamma ray burst, the most powerful explosions known. The heaviest weigh in at about 10^47 W, or the equivalent of 10^21 Suns. I very, very much doubt that an unaided human can survive, much less command that kind of energy. And if Jesus indeed was so special that he could, then, quite frankly, I find the entire New Testament to be a very sick and very misguided joke. Such a creature would not bother with puny humans. Jesus would be to us what we are to an amoeba. Literally and utterly beneath his notice, save for, perhaps, some tiny sliver of interest in the fact that we exist. Try to imagine what we would be able to teach an amoeba.

Fourth, you are missing a very vital point. You are dealing with a religion. You cannot reason out a religion in scientific terms, much to the chagrin (and utter disagreement) of many young earth-creationists of which I gather there are many in your home country. Jesus is the embodiment of that religion, thus you cannot use a natural, i.e. scientific, description to explain his actions. That is a tough nut to swallow. I can say but one thing: you just have to believe that what the Bible says is true. I already pointed out that many of your arguments already are unscientific, so that in my opinion the title of this thread is an oxymoron.

Besides, wouldn't it more or less ruin the miracle of the empty grave if Jesus was indeed discovered to have used a very natural and very scientific doorway into other dimensions...? Then it is no longer a miracle, akin to many other phenomena which are no longer miracles such as solar eclipses, crying statues, lightning and rainbows. An interesting take on Jesus in a SF setting (if only mentioned in a few lines in the middle of the fourth and final book) might be Dan Symmons' Hyperion saga. You might not like the role the christian church adopts in the third and fourth novel, but it is an impressive read nonetheless. Especially since the story relies heavily on those multidimensional doors you described.

[Cymric]

bjjones37 wrote:
All we perceive are the reflections of photons off of the three dimensional surface of something, yet there is so much more to it than that.
How can you know if that 'there is so much more to it than that' if our perception is limited? Read this nice and slow and ponder the meaning of the sentence as a whole. I have a strong suspicion that I know what your answer is going to be, and that is precisely why people call what you do 'to believe'.

The same is true of God. We try to judge him (naturally) from the stand point of human perception and experience, forgetting that he is not human and did not originate from Earth.
To be very honest, I find speculation on the nature of God to be quite silly. After all, we can never perceive his true grandeur, limited by our perception as we are. The line of argument is similar to the one above. Once again, we are dealing with matters of a religious and supernatural origin, and logic and reason as we know them just don't work there anymore.

[bjjones37]

@Cymric

Ah Cymric,
I was sure someone would poke my little hypothesis full of holes, and far too easily at that. But is was a fun little exercise anyway. :-)

I was not saying that matter is the result of intersecting dimensions (although it is an intriguing thought), simply that the warping of dimensions could cause a 'bridge effect' within a given dimensional continuum. Where does all of that mass go that falls into a black hole anyway. Is it really all permanently contained? Supposedly a true black hole has no mass. Its event horizon is supposed to stabilize. Since mass cannot be obliterated, just converted, what happens to it?


As far as power is concerned, my little finger is full of power. We use plutonium simply because it is already unstable and fairly easy to disrupt, all you really need is critical mass. But the atomic bond within the nucleus of virtually any atom contains an enormous amount of power, even the atoms in my little finger. I just do not know how to harness it. For thousands of years we did not know how to harness the power in plutonium either, but that did not mean it could not be done. Of course God is all powerful anyway, but that does not mean he does not use consistent methods that we may define as 'scientific'.

I read articles where tachyon trails were supposed to have been experimentally traced through frozen alcohol (IIRC). I suppose the scientists conducting the experiment could have been simply wrong. But their evidence suggested that tachyons do not move in straight lines.

I would not judge God by human standards. Any new born babe is puny and appears to us to be unintelligent, but we nurture it (hopefully) until it grows into a thinking, feeling adult. God attempts to do the same with us. It is not a matter of equality, we will never be his equal. More the love of a parent for his child, and artist for his art, a creator for his creature, etc.

Science is the study of an observed phenomenon. It does not matter where or how the phenomenon was observed. Everything that Jesus did is just as much a phenomenon as everything else that occurred on this planet, and scientific method can be applied to any observed phenomenon. But I really am not trying to say "This is how it happened." I am just saying "What if..."

If you believe in God, then you know that God created Chemistry and Physics, and Biology, and every other science there is because he created everything according to his own design. So by studying science, I learn more about God and how he does things.

To me, a miracle is simply something that God does whether we understand how he does it or not. The simple act of making a new life is a miracle that we take for granted every day. A miracle does not have to be a mystery, but I try to appreciate them regardless.

While Jesus has been exploited by many religions, I do not consider him to be the embodiment of religion at all. I consider him to be the embodiment of God, which is the antithesis of religion.

Besides, the topic “Philosophy and Religion” seemed the ideal place to put this thread.

[bjjones37]

Cymric wrote:
bjjones37 wrote:
All we perceive are the reflections of photons off of the three dimensional surface of something, yet there is so much more to it than that.
How can you know if that 'there is so much more to it than that' if our perception is limited? Read this nice and slow and ponder the meaning of the sentence as a whole. I have a strong suspicion that I know what your answer is going to be, and that is precisely why people call what you do 'to believe'.

I was really trying to be rather simplistic in my allegory. If you look at my three dimensional surface, you do not see my heart, or my lungs or the marvel of my immune system. You do not see my emotions or my intellect. This is what I meant by there being so much more than what is on the surface. That is true of us, and that is true of God.


The same is true of God. We try to judge him (naturally) from the stand point of human perception and experience, forgetting that he is not human and did not originate from Earth.
To be very honest, I find speculation on the nature of God to be quite silly. After all, we can never perceive his true grandeur, limited by our perception as we are. The line of argument is similar to the one above. Once again, we are dealing with matters of a religious and supernatural origin, and logic and reason as we know them just don't work there anymore.

"we can never perceive his true grandeur"

I like the sounds of that. :-D
This is really the issue I was exploring to begin with. What we call 'supernatural', could it be a multidimensional manifestation? And I will be the first to admit that it might be entirely silly. :-)

[Cymric]

At first, I should apologize for misleading y'all: when a tachyon looses energy it goes faster, not slower. Weird buggers, that's what they are ;-).

[Black holes] Well, black holes always have mass. Where did you get the notion that they are massless? However, they do have some remarkable properties. Like for instance that their average density becomes smaller and smaller the more massive it becomes. Some supermassive black holes would even float in water... Yes, that's right. They'd float. Bizarre, no? Don't ask me to explain: I read this in a physics text a year or two back, and the math, while I cannot reproduce it, seemed impeccable.

[Power] We know what power is locked in your little finger ('don't point that thing at me!' ;-)) and apart from the exact source of energy causing a gamma ray burst, everything we see and observe is explainable in terms of very mundane physics. GRBs are still under very close scrutiny (we have only just begun observing them properly), so there appears to be no necessity to call other sources of energy into being. In addition, you're sidestepping the question: how can a mere mortal shell of a human survive contact with an energy source of sufficient magnitude to alter space-time to its own ends?

The point I'm trying to make here is not that I want a specific answer from you. It is rather that what you propose is just as much a miracle as is the simple description of 'Jesus' grave is empty'. Now you incorporate multiple dimensions, doorways, unspecified sources of energy, and more. Try this episode (http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20000116) of PVP online for a cute illustration of what I mean.

[Tachyon detection] There's a brief discussion about it in the sci.physics FAQ. Something about an imbalance in neutrino energy during beta decay of tritium. The evidence was quite dodgy, however, and I know that many experiments are now underway to really look at things very accurately. Not because of the tachyons, but because of the elusive neutrinos. The latter are much more interesting.

[God's relation to us] I find your description a loving one, the kind that makes you feel safe and comfortable. But also very anthropomorphistic. Otherwise there is just sooooo much distance between God and us that the entire thought would lose its attractiveness. At least, it would for me.

[Studying Jesus] Well, you are right about Jesus being an 'observable phenomenon'. Trouble is, we only have the Bible as a source of information. The first four books of the New Testament contradict each other in various places (they augment each other too, I admit), and the remainder was written by a man who, as I recall, did not even meet Jesus in person, and wrote it decades after Jesus' death. That is, from a professional scientific point of view, extremely weak evidence. I don't even think I can call it evidence. It is like that tachyon experiment, in a sense.

[Studying God through science] Again a laudable undertaking. The problem I have with that is that the role of God seems to disappear the more we learn of nature. Put another way, for many processes we observe, 'God' is not a necessary explanation. Or put in yet other terms, by studying his work, we find no evidence it is *his*. Or, put yet again in a different way, we cannot infer his existence from what we observe, other than by prior assumption. Now I know this is going to provoke strong responses from many around here, and I am going to leave it at that, as there are plenty of sites elsewhere on the 'net where this discussion can be pursued further. I just want to leave the topic be, save from voicing the opinion that I find it very odd that a naturalistic and inherently god-less description has managed to be so incredibly succesful, and is able to explain things from colliding galaxies to the properties of quarks with just a handful of theories. God very nearly takes on the property of a bad semantical definition.

[Miracles] Good view, and the one I would be supporting if I were a believer, although I would find it hard to chose between miracles. There are just so darned many of them out there. It makes me wonder whether there is something wrong with the meaning of the word ;-).

[FluffyMcDeath]

bjjones37 wrote:

It is supposed to be impossible of a particle to move faster than light.


No. It is impossible for a particle with mass to travel AT the speed of light. Velocities less than or greater than C are valid solutions.

Yet tachyons routinely move faster than light, and indeed, seem incapable of going any slower.

And the easter bunny seems to hide brightly painted eggs. There is as yet no evidence for the existance of either of them.

I submit to you that they are simple following a series of intersections that we cannot perceive. Jesus never made any claim that he walked through the wall. I submit to you that he simply used a multidimensional door.

And I submit to you that we might as well discuss the physics of Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz, or any other story book.

[FluffyMcDeath]

bjjones37 wrote:

He did say "I and my father are one" and "If you have seen me, you have seen the father". He was talking about God.
And I do love physics. :-)

I might say that my wife and I are one, or that we are of one mind. How literally would you take that?

I might say, if you talk to me, you're talking to my boss, or vice versa, if you hear it from me, you hear it from the boss. Again, no need to take it literally unless you like the magical idea that two people are one person. It simply means that I am the authorized representative.

[Karlos]

@Cymric

Re: lower density of more massive black holes..

Is that not due to the fact that however radius to the event horizon increases with the mass of the singularity, the volume would go up as the cube of that? Unless the radius increases with less than an inverse cube in relation to the mass, I can see intuitively the density would naturally fall quite rapidly.

[bloodline]

Karlos wrote:
@Cymric

Re: lower density of more massive black holes..

Is that not due to the fact that however radius to the event horizon increases with the mass of the singularity, the volume would go up as the cube of that? Unless the radius increases with less than an inverse cube in relation to the mass, I can see intuitively the density would naturally fall quite rapidly.

Your sentence makes... err... no sense... but I agree with your theory :-D

[bjjones37]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
but isn't it the way that if you live your life like Jesus did, you will become one with god again?

There is so much in that question, so much depth, I could not adequately answer in a simple post. But it does reach to the very heart of a walk with God. Firstly, because we are only human, we can never do what Jesus did. He was the perfect sacrifice. He was not simply human, that was only one aspect of his entity. Yes he was capable of pain and suffering and death. But that was the nature of his physical body which clothed a soul which went way beyond that. Even we are more than just physical form, but Jesus was God's only begotten son long before he ever appeared on Earth. "Let us make man in our image" Jesus Christ was the creator. We can attempt to live like him, and we should, but we cannot truly achieve it. This is why salvation is by grace. We cannot earn it, so God graciously made it a gift. This is why I stress so strongly that it is a relationship, not a religion, that is significant. When we receive Christ, God adopts us as his sons. In his eyes we become his children. But, as in a friendship or marriage or any other relationship, it does not end there. We must grow in our relationship with him in love and loyalty. There is no religious ritual that can substitute for this, no matter what any church or religion says. It does not have to happen in the four walls of any church. I did it in my dorm room on Kelly AFB by my bedside. At this point you want to please him and obey him. And he will tell you how. We do still have to deal with our own nature however. If our nature were inherently perfect, there would never be any crime. It is not. But God does give us the ability to overcome our darker nature through Jesus Christ. And this must be done daily. The closer you get to him, the more he helps you. I really do not know anything about being "one with God", but I am his child and that gives me tremendous joy.

[bjjones37]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

bjjones37 wrote:

It is supposed to be impossible of a particle to move faster than light.


No. It is impossible for a particle with mass to travel AT the speed of light. Velocities less than or greater than C are valid solutions.

__________________________________________________ _________

Here you have knowledge I lack.

__________________________________________________ _________

Yet tachyons routinely move faster than light, and indeed, seem incapable of going any slower.

And the easter bunny seems to hide brightly painted eggs. There is as yet no evidence for the existance of either of them.

__________________________________________________ _________

I know, I am proposing a hypothesis based on a theory. :-)

__________________________________________________ _________


I submit to you that they are simple following a series of intersections that we cannot perceive. Jesus never made any claim that he walked through the wall. I submit to you that he simply used a multidimensional door.

And I submit to you that we might as well discuss the physics of Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz, or any other story book.

Actually a suppositional discussion of the Physics of Peter Pan would be very interesting. :-D
But while I do not believe in Peter Pan, I do believe in Jesus Christ. :-)

[bloodline]

bjjones37 wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

bjjones37 wrote:

It is supposed to be impossible of a particle to move faster than light.


No. It is impossible for a particle with mass to travel AT the speed of light. Velocities less than or greater than C are valid solutions.

__________________________________________________ _________

Here you have knowledge I lack.

__________________________________________________ _________

Yet tachyons routinely move faster than light, and indeed, seem incapable of going any slower.

And the easter bunny seems to hide brightly painted eggs. There is as yet no evidence for the existance of either of them.

__________________________________________________ _________

I know, I am proposing a hypothesis based on a theory. :-)

__________________________________________________ _________


I submit to you that they are simple following a series of intersections that we cannot perceive. Jesus never made any claim that he walked through the wall. I submit to you that he simply used a multidimensional door.

And I submit to you that we might as well discuss the physics of Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz, or any other story book.

Actually a suppositional discussion of the Physics of Peter Pan would be very interesting. :-D
But while I do not believe in Peter Pan, I do believe in Jesus Christ. :-)

That's a bold statment! Why do you not believe in Peter Pan, but do believe in Jesus Christ? (You do appreciate that you may well have killed a fairy with your above statement :-D)

[bjjones37]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

bjjones37 wrote:

He did say "I and my father are one" and "If you have seen me, you have seen the father". He was talking about God.
And I do love physics. :-)

I might say that my wife and I are one, or that we are of one mind. How literally would you take that?

I might say, if you talk to me, you're talking to my boss, or vice versa, if you hear it from me, you hear it from the boss. Again, no need to take it literally unless you like the magical idea that two people are one person. It simply means that I am the authorized representative.

There is a tremendous amount of truth in what you say. Indeed Jesus was the authorized representative of God, but it went beyond that. Personally I believe that there is a spiritual element to marriage which we simply do not understand. In fact I think marriage in many ways typifies a relationship with God. It is one of the things which makes divorce so devastating to all concerned.

[Cymric]

@Karlos

Yes, it probably something like that. You can work it out from the equation of the Schwarzschild radius (R = 2 GM/c^2) quite easily, although I vaguely recall that the volume of a black hole, while scaling with R^3, does not have a proportionality constant of 4/3 pi. Density then falls off quadratically with increasing mass of the black bugger.

My defense: it was 4 AM at night when I read it :-).

[Cymric]

bjjones37 wrote:
Personally I believe that there is a spiritual element to marriage which we simply do not understand. In fact I think marriage in many ways typifies a relationship with God. It is one of the things which makes divorce so devastating to all concerned.
Interesting. What is your view on the many other forms of marriage in existence on this planet: man-man, woman-woman, man-many women, woman-many men (yes, that exists!)?

[bjjones37]

Cymric wrote:
[Black holes] Well, black holes always have mass. Where did you get the notion that they are massless? However, they do have some remarkable properties. Like for instance that their average density becomes smaller and smaller the more massive it becomes. Some supermassive black holes would even float in water... Yes, that's right. They'd float. Bizarre, no? Don't ask me to explain: I read this in a physics text a year or two back, and the math, while I cannot reproduce it, seemed impeccable.




My informatin on black hole must be out of date. As I learned it a black hole begins when a star's gravitational force begins to overcome that natural repulsion between atomic nuclei which permits them to retain their identity. One nucleus crushes into another nucleus and becomes another element. Fusion works much the same way so that hydrogen ultimately becomes iron and so forth. But when the density of the star becomes great enough so that the gravitational pressure overcomes the explosive effects of fusion, the core eventually becomes solid neutronium (Neutron star). If there is sufficient mass, the core is supposed to keep collapsing and, in the books I have read (layman's I will admit), the gravity becomes so intense that the core ceases to have a defined boundary. At this point the fabric of space becomes so warped that even light is redirected into the star so it appears black at the core in all spectra. I was given to understand that at this point it had zero mass, just pure force. Mass must have some measurable dimension. That is a property of mass. I have read that the core of a black hole has no measurable dimension, thus no mass. Please feel free to update me on this.

[Karlos]

bloodline wrote:

Karlos wrote:
@Cymric

Re: lower density of more massive black holes..

Is that not due to the fact that however radius of the event horizon increases with the mass of the singularity, the volume would go up as the cube of that? Unless the radius increases with less than an inverse cube in relation to the mass, I can see intuitively the density would naturally fall quite rapidly.

Your sentence makes... err... no sense... but I agree with your theory :-D



radius = f(mass)
volume = 4/3 * PI x radius^3
density = mass / volume

therefore: density prop to mass/(f(mass))^3

it would take a pretty unusual f() to achieve linearity or invariance (f() would need to be proportional to 1/mass^3 for that).

[bjjones37]

Cymric wrote:
Interesting. What is your view on the many other forms of marriage in existence on this planet: man-man, woman-woman, man-many women, woman-many men (yes, that exists!)?

While a relationship with God is through adoption, marriage does 'typify' it in that a close, lifelong relationship must be maintained. Marriage was intended to provide a stable environment where in children are produced and provided for. I do not consider "man-man" or "woman-woman" to be viable in marriage as it does not produce children. These are very viable relationships outside of marriage as seen in friendship, father-son, brother-bother, sister-sister, etc. While "man-many woman" and "woman-many man" can and has worked, I do not consider it ideal as, while children are produced, the opportunity for favoritism in various aspects of the family is too great. This can place terrible stresses on a child or spouse. While this can occur within a man-woman relationship, it is more likely to occur in a triangle, etc.

[Karlos]

bjjones37 wrote:
Mass must have some measurable dimension. That is a property of mass. I have read that the core of a black hole has no measurable dimension, thus no mass. Please feel free to update me on this.

Well, the idea is that the singularity is where all logic fails because you reach mathematical infinity (which has a natural tendency to break just about any function you use it in). Finite mass, zero radius, thus giving you infinite density.

[PMC]

Sorry all, this goes way over my simple head but something caught my attention:

A Tachyon is a theoretical particle that travels at a faster than light velocity, right? It's existence isn't quite proven, but how have we theorised as to their existence? Do they neatly fill in the gap of a large equation somewhere?

So anyway, said tachyon travels faster than light. As Fluffy stated velocities both faster than or less than C are "valid solutions". Great! However, how did the tachyon reach a velocity greater than C? How much energy would be required to accelerate such a particle? How did it reach the velocity in the first instance, as surely it would have to accelerate from sublight to faster than light speed crossing an impossible / impassable threshold where infinite energy is required? Doh! My head is imploding (long day in the office).

[Karlos]

As far as I understand it, lightspeed represents an asymptote in the equations that tie mass / length in direction of travel / time dilation with speed.

Once you go through the asymptote, you get some inverted parameters for the above properties. This has all sorts of weird implications :-)

[bjjones37]

Cymric wrote:

[Power] We know what power is locked in your little finger ('don't point that thing at me!' ;-)) and apart from the exact source of energy causing a gamma ray burst, everything we see and observe is explainable in terms of very mundane physics. GRBs are still under very close scrutiny (we have only just begun observing them properly), so there appears to be no necessity to call other sources of energy into being. In addition, you're sidestepping the question: how can a mere mortal shell of a human survive contact with an energy source of sufficient magnitude to alter space-time to its own ends?




Granted it would require a tremendous amount of energy to alter three dimensional space. The point I was trying to make is that the four (or five) dimensional doorway may already be there and we simply do not perceive it. If Jesus were (and I do not say that he is, just speculating) a five dimensional creature; then, while he would appear three dimensional to us, he would perceive 'doorways' that we could not see and simply step through them.

Just for sake of discussion there is really nothing that defines the "first" or "second" dimension. One is simply a direction that is at right angles to the other. Einstein never actually stated that the fourth dimension is time, simply that we live in a four dimensional space-time continuum. A two dimensional creature (if it existed) would not be able to see 'up', but that does not necessarily mean that it is not there. Einstein realized that if space deformed, it must deform in some direction. Which? The fourth. Time I consider to simply be an inherently quality of this existence. As Einsten stated: "Space-Time continuum".

[bloodline]

bjjones37 wrote:
If Jesus were (and I do not say that he is, just speculating) a five dimensional creature; then, while he would appear three dimensional to us, he would perceive 'doorways' that we could not see and simply step through them.


So if our 5D creature traverses through this 5th dimention... he still remains in the same place in the other dimentions... as far as we are concerned he has not moved.

Imagine the universe is 2D, but your creature is 3D, now imagine he is trapped in a 2D box (bound by x and y).. the 3D creature can move in the z axis... but he is still confined in the x and the y... any 2D observer will not see the Z transition.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Cymric wrote:
woman-many men (yes, that exists!)?ssssh! not too loud, Cecilia might hear you! :lol: ;-)

(btw, I'm not going into that gay marriage discussion again -what the heck think ppl have the right to interfere with others' lives?-)

[bjjones37]

PMC wrote:
Sorry all, this goes way over my simple head but something caught my attention:

A Tachyon is a theoretical particle that travels at a faster than light velocity, right? It's existence isn't quite proven, but how have we theorised as to their existence? Do they neatly fill in the gap of a large equation somewhere?

So anyway, said tachyon travels faster than light. As Fluffy stated velocities both faster than or less than C are "valid solutions". Great! However, how did the tachyon reach a velocity greater than C? How much energy would be required to accelerate such a particle? How did it reach the velocity in the first instance, as surely it would have to accelerate from sublight to faster than light speed crossing an impossible / impassable threshold where infinite energy is required? Doh! My head is imploding (long day in the office).


I would like to speculate on this one. As Einstein theorized, time is relative. Any particle that appears to travel more than 186,282 miles in less than a second would seem to be traveling faster than light. Now any particle in motion is supposed travel in a straight line unless acted upon by another force. To put it another way, it will follow the path of least resistance by the most direct route. What if the most direct route skips a region of three dimensional space? It will appear to go faster than light. What if, when drawn into this discontinuity, it has to divert its direction? It will not appear to travel in a straight line. What I have read of experiments with tachyons, it appears to have both of these properties.

[PMC]

bjjones37 wrote:

I would like to speculate on this one. As Einstein theorized, time is relative. Any particle that appears to travel more than 186,282 miles in less than a second would seem to be traveling faster than light. Now any particle in motion is supposed travel in a straight line unless acted upon by another force. To put it another way, it will follow the path of least resistance by the most direct route. What if the most direct route skips a region of three dimensional space? It will appear to go faster than light. What if, when drawn into this discontinuity, it has to divert its direction? It will not appear to travel in a straight line. What I have read of experiments with tachyons, it appears to have both of these properties.

Ah! So the Tachyon isn't actually travelling faster than light, it only appears to be... because it's not actually travelling in three dimensional space as we know it.

I've got a mental image of two adjacent marbles, one rolling over corrogated iron, the other rolling on a flat surface. Although they're travelling at the same speed, the second marble arrives at it's destination first, hence the apparent higher velocity... Of course, the corrugated iron represents space as we understand it. Am I close?

[bjjones37]

bloodline wrote:

bjjones37 wrote:
If Jesus were (and I do not say that he is, just speculating) a five dimensional creature; then, while he would appear three dimensional to us, he would perceive 'doorways' that we could not see and simply step through them.


So if our 5D creature traverses through this 5th dimention... he still remains in the same place in the other dimentions... as far as we are concerned he has not moved.

Imagine the universe is 2D, but your creature is 3D, now imagine he is trapped in a 2D box (bound by x and y).. the 3D creature can move in the z axis... but he is still confined in the x and the y... any 2D observer will not see the Z transition.

This is true, unless space is warped, as it is with planetary bodies. Sufficient warpage might cause some dimension to fold. We would not perceive it because the fold is in a direction we could not see. But someone who could see the fold could simply jump from one plane to the next in that unperceiveable direction. The curvature of space itself is what makes light appear to curve around a planet. From the standpoint of a photon, it is actually traveling in a straight line. The question is (and crucial to my little hypothesis) can three dimensional space be not only curved, but folded? (I might have just talked myself into a box with this one. :-D )

[bjjones37]

PMC wrote:

Ah! So the Tachyon isn't actually travelling faster than light, it only appears to be... because it's not actually travelling in three dimensional space as we know it.

I've got a mental image of two adjacent marbles, one rolling over corrogated iron, the other rolling on a flat surface. Although they're travelling at the same speed, the second marble arrives at it's destination first, hence the apparent higher velocity... Of course, the corrugated iron represents space as we understand it. Am I close?

I believe this is how Einstien would have viewed it according to his theory of relativity. Just remember that we would perceive the corrugations as flat as they are in a direction we cannot perceive. And the flat surface would represent areas of three dimensional discontinuity. (Discontinuity, BTW, is a standard concept in calculus.)

[bloodline]

bjjones37 wrote:

bloodline wrote:

bjjones37 wrote:
If Jesus were (and I do not say that he is, just speculating) a five dimensional creature; then, while he would appear three dimensional to us, he would perceive 'doorways' that we could not see and simply step through them.


So if our 5D creature traverses through this 5th dimention... he still remains in the same place in the other dimentions... as far as we are concerned he has not moved.

Imagine the universe is 2D, but your creature is 3D, now imagine he is trapped in a 2D box (bound by x and y).. the 3D creature can move in the z axis... but he is still confined in the x and the y... any 2D observer will not see the Z transition.

This is true, unless space is warped, as it is with planetary bodies. Sufficient warpage might cause some dimension to fold. We would not perceive it because the fold is in a direction we could not see. But someone who could see the fold could simply jump from one plane to the next in that unperceiveable direction. The curvature of space itself is what makes light appear to curve around a planet. From the standpoint of a photon, it is actually traveling in a straight line. The question is (and crucial to my little hypothesis) can three dimensional space be not only curved, but folded? (I might have just talked myself into a box with this one. :-D )

You are confusing the issue by thinking in more dimentions than we can perceive... it's much better to start with a simpler model.

Lets assume the universe is 3D (x,y and time), then the planet is a 2D object bending spacetime... you should now see the flaw in your thinking :-)

[bjjones37]

bloodline wrote:

You are confusing the issue by thinking in more dimentions than we can perceive... it's much better to start with a simpler model.

Lets assume the universe is 3D (x,y and time), then the planet is a 2D object bending spacetime... you should now see the flaw in your thinking :-)

If you fold this 3D universe so that distant coordinates become adjacent, then the 2D creature could move to the adjaceny if he could only perceive the nth direction. The folding is acheived by mass (gravity), not volume or direction and curvature of spacetime is already an observed phenomenon.

[FluffyMcDeath]

PMC wrote:

So anyway, said tachyon travels faster than light. As Fluffy stated velocities both faster than or less than C are "valid solutions".


That's right. As you accelerate a particle to C it becomes more massive and each bit of velocity you try to add to it as it approaches C requires more and more energy. To actually get the particle to reach C requires an infinite amount of energy, an unlikely amount to come across, and not something you'd want to find on your lawn one morning.
The equations describing this also have superluminal non-infinite solutions. As you come down from a superluminal velocity (by adding energy) and approach C it takes more and more energy to slow to C. A tachyon at "rest" would be travelling at infinte speed, which is quite fast.

Great! However, how did the tachyon reach a velocity greater than C?

Well, there are two possibilities. One is that they were created that way and they've always been superluminal and always will be.

Then there's the tunnelling solution. QM allows particles to cross energy barriers that they could not normally scale if the barrier width is narrow enough and the particle state is sufficiently undettermined that it can exist in superposition on both sides of the barrier. Then there is a finite probabily that the particle will jump "through" the barrier. Wacky stuff.

[mdwh2]

bjjones37 wrote:
While a relationship with God is through adoption, marriage does 'typify' it in that a close, lifelong relationship must be maintained. Marriage was intended to provide a stable environment where in children are produced and provided for. I do not consider "man-man" or "woman-woman" to be viable in marriage as it does not produce children.
So the question then is, what is your view on marriages where the couple are don't produce children - espeically if they are unable to, or have absolutely no intention of doing so?

While "man-many woman" and "woman-many man" can and has worked, I do not consider it ideal as, while children are produced, the opportunity for favoritism in various aspects of the family is too great. This can place terrible stresses on a child or spouse. While this can occur within a man-woman relationship, it is more likely to occur in a triangle, etc.I'm sure that there are all sorts of arguments that could put in support - for example, there are more people to support the children, and there is less risk of big problems if one person leaves the relationship (unlike a couple, where one person leaving is a complete breakup).

[mdwh2]

bjjones37 wrote:
Einstein realized that if space deformed, it must deform in some direction. Which? The fourth.If a space has curvature, it does not require a higher dimension to curve or deform in - it can be an intrinsic property of the space itself.

AFAIK, there is no requirement in general relativity for the Universe to be contained in some higher dimension space.

[bjjones37]

mdwh2 wrote:
So the question then is, what is your view on marriages where the couple are don't produce children - espeically if they are unable to, or have absolutely no intention of doing so?



The approach I was taking to this question was from the standpoint of the species as a whole. Were all pairing Male-Make or Female-Female, the species would cease to exist after one generation. So I was approaching from the standpoint of viability. Issues of individual preference or health or morality I chose not to address. I will state my personal conviction however that sex of any kind does not belong outside the confines of marriage.

[bjjones37]

mdwh2 wrote:

bjjones37 wrote:
Einstein realized that if space deformed, it must deform in some direction. Which? The fourth.If a space has curvature, it does not require a higher dimension to curve or deform in - it can be an intrinsic property of the space itself.

AFAIK, there is no requirement in general relativity for the Universe to be contained in some higher dimension space.


Your probably right but I was generalzing based on the geometrical model I had already put forth. Just trying to think "outside the box" so to speak. I personally feel that more discoveries might be made if we think outside of established parameters of convention. This is what I admired about Einstein most. After being taught Newton's Classical Mechanics, he thought to himself "What if ..." :-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

bjjones37 wrote:

mdwh2 wrote:
So the question then is, what is your view on marriages where the couple are don't produce children - espeically if they are unable to, or have absolutely no intention of doing so?



The approach I was taking to this question was from the standpoint of the species as a whole. Were all pairing Male-Make or Female-Female, the species would cease to exist after one generation. So I was approaching from the standpoint of viability. Issues of individual preference or health or morality I chose not to address. I will state my personal conviction however that sex of any kind does not belong outside the confines of marriage.I think you got a wrong view towards human nature and it's cultural aspects. I mean, look at for instance the ancient Greek culture: it was a homoseksual culture, yet still they made enough offspring. And not only the Greek culture was that way, quite a lot other cultures are/were that way.

[Dandy]

bjjones37 wrote:
...
It has no mass, therefore should not be influenced by the affects of gravity – f=ma or force = mass times acceleration. As light has no mass, gravity should have no effect upon it.
...

To my knowledge light *HAS* a mass.

Ever heard of the dualism of corpuscle and wave?

Light consists of both - particles *AND* radiation!

[bjjones37]

Dandy wrote:

bjjones37 wrote:
...
It has no mass, therefore should not be influenced by the affects of gravity – f=ma or force = mass times acceleration. As light has no mass, gravity should have no effect upon it.
...

To my knowledge light *HAS* a mass.

Ever heard of the dualism of corpuscle and wave?

Light consists of both - particles *AND* radiation!

If light has mass, it should be measurable. Has anyone ever measured the mass of a unit of light? You may be right, but I was given to understand that the "dualism" was just used as a model to describe some of the properties of light which are not truly understood. Thus the term "wavicle". :-)

[bjjones37]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I think you got a wrong view towards human nature and it's cultural aspects. I mean, look at for instance the ancient Greek culture: it was a homoseksual culture, yet still they made enough offspring. And not only the Greek culture was that way, quite a lot other cultures are/were that way.

If the Greeks had a truly homosexual culture then there would not have been any offspring. As it is, it must have been bisexual in nature. This would imply a level of promiscuity and loss of loyalty which would be damaging to a family unit IMHO.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Well, duh
but tis not what I meant
The Greeks propagated the homoseksual lifestyle as the West does now with the heteroseksual lifestyle.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Well, duh
but tis not what I meant
The Greeks propagated the homoseksual lifestyle as the West does now with the heteroseksual lifestyle.

:roflmao:

[bjjones37]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Well, duh
but tis not what I meant
The Greeks propagated the homoseksual lifestyle as the West does now with the heteroseksual lifestyle.

Lifestyle is a very broad topic to comment on. :-) I was primarily dealing with the concepts of marriage and family, something I have almost 20 years of success with and so feel qualified to comment on.

My knowledge of ancient Greek culture really is not all that strong so I could not really comment on it, though I did read and enjoy "The Odyssey" (in english of course.) :-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

bjjones37 wrote:
Lifestyle is a very broad topic to comment on. :-) I was primarily dealing with the concepts of marriage and family, something I have almost 20 years of success with and so feel qualified to comment on.
Well, lifestyle is maybe a wrong choice of words (I'm champion in making bad word choices), but maybe you don't know but there are also quite a lot homo-couples who raise kids, I mean, have a family and so. Do you know any? Do you know how they live, who they are and what they do?

[bjjones37]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Do you know any? Do you know how they live, who they are and what they do?


Actually I do not know any homo-couples at all. I have known a few homosexuals though.

[Cymric]

bjjones37 wrote:
If light has mass, it should be measurable. Has anyone ever measured the mass of a unit of light? You may be right, but I was given to understand that the "dualism" was just used as a model to describe some of the properties of light which are not truly understood. Thus the term "wavicle". :-)
Light does NOT have mass in the general meaning of the word. This link (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html) explains it in greater detail. However, light does exert pressure on objects, albeit a very weakly.

Also, you should be very careful with phrases like 'properties of light which are not truly understood'. We understand light extremely well. It is made of quanta. Asking what quanta are made of is pointless, since we can never answer that question experimentally.

[bjjones37]

Cymric wrote:
bjjones37 wrote:
If light has mass, it should be measurable. Has anyone ever measured the mass of a unit of light? You may be right, but I was given to understand that the "dualism" was just used as a model to describe some of the properties of light which are not truly understood. Thus the term "wavicle". :-)
Light does NOT have mass in the general meaning of the word. This link (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html) explains it in greater detail. However, light does exert pressure on objects, albeit a very weakly.

Also, you should be very careful with phrases like 'properties of light which are not truly understood'. We understand light extremely well. It is made of quanta. Asking what quanta are made of is pointless, since we can never answer that question experimentally.

Okay, perhaps I should have said "not completely understood". But this does bring up a very interesting phenomenon. How can a particle with no mass have momentum (mass * velocity)? I know, Newtonion mechanics. But still the concept seems to elude me.

I do have another hypothesis. (Note the word hypothesis. :-) ) Sometimes I wonder if what we refer to as matter is nothing more than interlocking fields of energy. Energy can interreact in different ways to simulate matter. For example, when we touch a flat surface. The surface itself seems solid and resists penetration. We feel a table to as hard and solid. Yet at an atomic level there is no actual physical contact at all. Simply the repulsive effect of the electron fields. Were that repulsive electromagnetic-like effect not present, our hand would pass right through the table. The distances between the electrons and nuclei are that great. "Matter" is comprised primarily of empty space. So perhaps the concept of "matter" is simply a convenient convention.

[KennyR]

bjjones wrote:
"Matter" is comprised primarily of empty space. So perhaps the concept of "matter" is simply a convenient convention.

You can't define it as empty space because it is occupied by the forces that accompany matter. Matter is built from single-dimensional points that radiate different aspects of the same field of force. The "radius" of a baryon such as a proton is an illusion: it really is made of three quark point charges. The electron shell of an atom is made up by a probability distribution of the electrons.

Forget the concept of free space when it comes to atomic and quantum scales. Matter is defined not only by its existence but its range of effect. Therefore this idea that something can "go through" something is flawed, because the very properties of the particles that compose them makes that impossible. This can't be debated: it's these properties that actually define it as matter.

[matt3k]

If I might make one suggestion bjjones, perhaps a look at theology will explain why Christ can move through walls.

Consider this for a starting point, God is the creator, he would therefore have to be outside our understandable universe. He would therefore not be impacted by any of our known universe. As an example time and matter don't apply to God.

Wish I had more time to explain this out, but I think you can see where I'm going with this. For more information you might want to pick up Theology for Beginners by F.J. Sheed.

Regards,

Matt

[Cymric]

matt3k wrote:
If I might make one suggestion bjjones, perhaps a look at theology will explain why Christ can move through walls.

Consider this for a starting point, God is the creator, he would therefore have to be outside our understandable universe. He would therefore not be impacted by any of our known universe. As an example time and matter don't apply to God.

Wish I had more time to explain this out, but I think you can see where I'm going with this. For more information you might want to pick up Theology for Beginners by F.J. Sheed.
Actually, you're going nowhere with this line of thought. It's a convenient excuse---I would almost call it 'the next generation excuse'---to 'explain' why miracles happen. Gods were first thought to hide in lightning, rivers, oceans, fire, and more; then slowly with our growing understanding, God was forced out into other realms. Apparently things have progressed that it has become mainstream theology to place God outside of our universe, so He isn't subject to space and time, solving in a quite ad hoc manner several nettling issues which have plagued the God-concept from the beginning!

If God is outside our universe, then we can never hope to detect/talk to/depend upon/listen to/... Him in any way, since we are bound to this particular universe. It would be exactly equivalent to saying that the Invisible Pink Unicorn too has taken up residence outside the universe. It could be that it is the case, it could just as well be not the case. Speculation is therefore quite irrelevant.

Second, in order for God to make His presence felt to us, creatures of this universe, He'd have to 'stoop' to using forces available in this universe. Otherwise we can't perceive Him. He is therefore subject to time and space as we currently understand them. You cannot be inside this universe while retaining your time- and spaceless powers you have outside of it.

Third, the entire idea of being 'outside' the universe is a little iffy. That is not something Scripture teaches us, and if it does, it begs the question where that 'outside' came from. If the answer is then 'we don't need to explain, since it cannot be expressed in terms of space and time', the entire concept of God collapses similarly. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[FluffyMcDeath]

matt3k wrote:
If I might make one suggestion bjjones, perhaps a look at theology will explain why Christ can move through walls.



Hmm. Perhaps a look at psychology would be better. The reason Christ can move through walls is the same reason that ghosts can move through walls, and also the same reason that Santa can visit millions of homes and leave presents at each all in a single night. The reason? Imagination is unfettered by reality.

[matt3k]

I simply offered an alternative for bjjones in regard to the original question using theology. If you wish to call theology an excuse that goes nowhere, that is your convenience.

Regards,

Matt

[Cymric]

matt3k wrote:
I simply offered an alternative for bjjones in regard to the original question using theology. If you wish to call theology an excuse that goes nowhere, that is your convenience.
Please read what I write before coming up with bold statements like that, because I did not say what you think I said. It really is not hard.