Why read a pseudo-science book when the author has explicitly stated there lies false information within its pages? You have stated that your book links the soul to dark energy, a hypothesis that is impossible to prove, and that there are only two forces, not the four that are known throughout the world.
Actually, my book is poorly categorized as either “science” or “pseudo-science.” There is no common category into which it fits. It is simply the basic notion of a
Theory of Everything which offers a broader bandwidth than the limited T.O.E.s proposed by physicists that only address physics and cosmology. My unique T.O.E. includes an explanation for human consciousness. It also describes the properties of the primary Creator in terms of basic physics principles.
Moreover, unlike the current horrid explanations for consciousness (e.g: Penrose’s boat anchor,
Consciousness and the Universe) mine is simple, fundamental, and verifiable.
For example, note that cosmology hypothesizes that the universe began with the dissolution of a “physical” singularity, and modern monotheism hypothesizes that it began with acts of will by a spirit-being. Neither of these hypothetical entities can be empirically verified. Their existence is supported only by belief.
However, my theories propose that the universe began from the interactions between stuff that still exists, and that can therefore be verified to exist.
Put even more simply, unlike cosmology and religion, my theories can be proven wrong. (Yes, I know that you will focus upon the “wrong” in that statement. Remember, please, that a theory which cannot be proven wrong is not a scientific theory.)
You claim that my linking of soul to dark energy cannot be proven, yet have not the slightest idea of either my “soul” concept or my explanation of dark energy.
Your concept of “soul” cannot be proven, and if you are a typical university-educated conventional physicist who gets his opinions from textbooks, you do not know squat about the nature of dark energy. You are arguing from your limited beliefs, not from my concepts.
That is hardly an open minded approach, but typical of dogmatists who intend to stay that way. Your choice, of course, but please be fair enough to acknowledge that you are trying my case without showing up in the courtroom. That’s as unconscionable as claiming that you know what’s going on in the world because you watch the NBC nightly news.
Yet here you are, a Christian-Physicist with all the bells, whistles, and paperwork (any published papers, BTW?) arguing against verifiable ideas that you’ve not even read. I’ve encountered Jehovah’s Witnesses with more open minds.
I think that you are better, and smarter than that, but I am willing to be proven wrong, if you insist.
I know about the four forces, of course, and also know that they are poorly understood, and that they are mathematical constructs which are necessary to make the “Standard Model” come out more or less reasonably. I also know that there are problems with this model. Personally, in my minority opinion, the S.M. offers no more physics insights than a toy car made from Lego blocks offers about the thermodynamic principles of internal combustion engines. Both are simply models— both simply approximations.
My book offers excellent arguments for the Two-Force concept, which is essential to my integration of physics and consciousness. Of course you will never actually know anything about the two forces I propose, or about any of my other ideas, because you are too dogmatic to question your own beliefs by reading alternative ideas.
That is kind of too bad. At the moment, I understand your beliefs (both physics and religion), plus a dozen alternative systems. And I also understand my own alternative system. But you are limited by your refusal to examine ideas in which you do not already believe. Exchanging ideas with you seems irresponsible, like trying to teach a student who refuses to read the textbook.
Curiously, your behavior is exactly the kind of behavior from BS/BA graduates that I have mentioned earlier. And your first sentence here equally applies to you: your comments are written by an ignorant man, and who intends on being, but chooses to remain completely ignorant about the subject that he has not studied but writes a lot about.
I’ve met some of those guys. My favorite nit was a NASA technician who claimed that he’d have developed Relativity Theory had Big Al not beaten him to the punch. And in an astronomy laboratory where I worked, my boss sent all the crackpots who wandered through the door to me, because I could beat them so mercilessly at their own game that they never returned again.
However, I always did these people the courtesy of hearing them out and coming to an understanding of their theories before the debunking process. That is because I recognized them as potentially kindred spirits who may have held valid insights not included in my mind’s database. At that time, my own theories were still in development and contained several serious flaws. Had I been unable to resolve them with deeper study and thought, they’d never have been worth publishing.
Even now, there are only a handful of people who think that publishing my book was a good idea. So far, they are the small set of those who have actually read the book. They are obviously biased.
Knowledge has a way of doing that to people who take the trouble to obtain it.
