h a l f b a k e r yThink of it as a spell checker that insults you, as well.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Since this is likely to be my last idea on the bakery till after New Year I’d make it a controversial and deeply thought provoking.
Scientists have isolated 4 fundamental forces, which cause every thing to exist: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the gravitational force and the electrostatic
force. However they take no consideration of God(s).
Each of these forces has their own fundamental particles: The gluon, the W bosons and Z particles, the graviton (theorised, but not proven) and I can’t remember the ones for the electrostatic force. But still no consideration of God(s).
I therefore propose the existence of a 5th fundamental force and its fundamental particle. Divine intervention and the holyon. Over the millennia of human existence many unexplained events have occurred and have been attributed to God(s). But how do(es) God(s) manage to distribute their divine intervention? The medium for transmitting their power: the holyon. A particle, which causes the break down of the other forces and the laws of physics in a variable area. (The area of the occurrence of the “miracle”) Example when Jesus walked on water, he was able to do so because of a high concentration of holyons around his feet, which suspended the power of the gravitational force. These hoyons are the actual power of the God(s), a fundamental particle that obeys no rules and can only be created by God(s).
The scientific explanation of divine power.
Reminds me a little of an idea I had awhile back...
http://www.halfbake..._20of_20Measurement
[RayfordSteele, Oct 04 2004]
Been there, read that
http://www.amazon.c...75823360/halfbakery
A fundamental particle that corresponds to divinity (as well as the spark of consciousness) is the theme of His Dark Materials. (Which falls apart in the third volume, I'm sad to say.) [dalek, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Psychons everywhere
http://www.google.c...&oe=UTF-8&q=psychon
[General Washington, Oct 04 2004]
Confidence-ons
https://www.google....m=bv.43287494,d.dmQ
Sagan, Clarke and Hawking discuss who knows more [JesusHChrist, Mar 07 2013]
[link]
|
| |
This isn’t magic it is a serious idea. How else would a God transmit his power? Can you think of another way/idea. |
|
| |
In my mind, speculation explaining the nature of God in a new way that hasn't been studied qualifies as an idea, in the same way as a new way to view sociology, psychology, etc. Ideas don't necessarily have to produce physical products or even concrete solutions. |
|
| |
And some people do say that God does anything. |
|
| |
[waugsqueke] I see where your coming from. That God doesn't need physical anything to do his bidding. This is just speculation though. |
|
| |
[IVnick8or] Noticed I said many not all. The question is how God(s) distribute their power. |
|
| |
IV, your problem then, seems to be with religion and its abuse in general, and not with this idea. And speculation does qualify for a post here. From the help file: "The halfbakery is a communal database of invention and speculation..." |
|
| |
I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend anyone. |
|
| |
Don't worry about it talen. Some people are too easily offended, IMHO. |
|
| |
its my belief that if there is a *god* he is capable of doing anything in any fashion he chooses. have a good break [talen] you've come some way in however many days its been. |
|
| |
Thank you my detachment to you all shall be of sorrow to my heart. (breaks down and weeps uncontrolably) |
|
| |
[blissmiss] Thanks. And I don't have multiple accounts. Don't worry I'll be back after New Year to "stir up some more stew". And I like your new idea about boggymen. |
|
| |
ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!! (Falls down on floor, twitching spasmodically, wishes he had bought a boggey man detector.) |
|
| |
I actually quite like this one; I view it as a satirical non-serious idea. Very Pratchett. + |
|
| |
I'm voting against this one. Not because of any anti-religious bias on my part, but rather because it's not particularly good scientific method. You are presuming the existence of "holyons" and are retroactively shoe-horning the extant data (in this case, Biblical accounts) to fit that mold. However, you haven't yet proven the necessity of a new particle to account for "miraculous" events. In order to validate your theory, you'd have to observe a number of "miraculous" events (good luck, God is not one for performing miracles on command), correlate the data gathered during your observations, determine all (if any) common factors, and then see if any of those factors point to the existence of an as-of-yet unidentified particle.
Your theory is quaint, as theories go. There's certainly no harm in speculating, but I fear that that's as far as this theory is going to go. Ultimately, I would assert that the will of God is not distillable into a particular particle (or wave, field or force, for that matter), but is rather just beyond such things. It acts upon the physical universe, but does not require a particular physical particle in order to be transmitted into and within it. But at that point, I suppose I'm speculating as much as anyone else. Whee, metaphysics in the morning! |
|
| |
//You are presuming the existence of "holyons" and are retroactively shoe-horning the extant data (in this case, Biblical accounts) to fit that mold// |
|
| |
Sounds like a lot of modern physical theories, to me... |
|
| |
theories don't have to be proven or thoroughly motivated to be theories. That's the point. |
|
| |
Your're right it is speculation, and I really have no time to correlate the data of miracles. (I wouldn't no where to start) I don't have the knowledge to persue this theory futher as I'm not that intelligent. But it's just a theory that popped into my head during that dreamy time befor your're actually asleep. This idea is fullfilling it's purpose though; to provoke argument and discussion. |
|
| |
[yamahito] it's nice to see another Pratchett fan on the bakery. (trys to pat yamahito on back but realises he's not actually in the same room as him) Read Night Watch yet? I haven't which is sad. |
|
| |
I agree with [waugs] disagreeing with the [m-f-d], for the reason that [yama] stated (satirical non-serious idea).
(I'd call them "theons" though.) |
|
| |
Would make sense. I'm going to miss these jokes.
And why has IV removed all his annos? |
|
| |
//theories don't have to be proven or thoroughly motivated to be theories. That's the point.//
True, but if theories remain unproven (or at least without a sincere attempt to prove them), their usefulness is limited. Given that talen has admitted that he has no evidence to support his theory, and that he also said that this idea was written //to provoke argument and discussion//, I think that the "holyon" would be better described as a thought experiment. |
|
| |
forni been picking up the toys? |
|
| |
[angel] - theonogy, study of theons. |
|
| |
no, thought experiments are actual experiments, just ones that it would be 'impossible' to do. This is a theory. That its //usefulness is limited//, i'll not deny. |
|
| |
Pratchett came up with kingons and queenons to convey succession; also with the SI unit of magic, the thaum; psychons are already a well-known posit; 'holyon' is just another colouring-in of well-drawn lines. However I would like to see a fundamental particle posited to describe durability or hardness. |
|
| |
Durons and...no, wait. I fell for it, didn't I? |
|
| |
5th fundamental force x fundamental particle = faith |
|
| |
I'm fishboning this one. Not because I don't like your proposal, but because God (if such a Thing exists) wouldn't need his own, personal particles because, as the 'creator of all things', they are all his own personal particles. |
|
| |
Therefore the potential to create miracles would be an innate property of the particles that already exist, the exact configuration necessary to create the aforementioned miraculous events known only to God himself. |
|
| |
God need not 'prove' himself by using unique particles; his amazing scheme called 'Creation' is proof enough. |
|
| |
Maybe God is part of these particles. But I believe that for some thing to happen including miracles something must be sent or used to cause them. |
|
| |
Scientists force things to exist? I don't believe that. |
|
| |
I propose a particularly plausible part for your particle,
as the precursor for the fifth fundamental flaw of
physics found frequently in failures of forcing
forgotten formulas for four figure factors. |
|
| |
//God need not 'prove' himself by using unique
particles; his amazing scheme called 'Creation' is
proof enough. // He's going to have to do better
than that if he wants to fly via a US airport. |
|
| |
Aren't we all in god. A burp, thought or any internal godly action is a gift apon us, registered or not. |
|
| |
I have a new theory of the universe: Confidence-ons are
the fundamental particle. The Big Bang was
actually a time of infinite smug, swaggery, overconfidence,
as evidenced by this clip (link) of Carl Sagan, Steven
Hawking and Arthur Clarke demonstrating how, even just a
few years later, they appear to us to be mired in an almost
incapacitating amount of smarm. |
|
| |
And you find these holy particles with a faith based detector? Does the devil have his own particles or just spin these backwards? |
|
| |