Proof of the existence of God?

origin said:
[Dr.Gabriel Oyibo] Discovered that hydrogen is the only building block of the entire universe
Click to expand...
An atom of hydrogen is made up of an electron and a proton. Neutrons not bound by atomic nuclei decay quickly into a proton, and electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. So hydrogen (along with just a few other particles) could be said to be a building block from which everything else can be made. In fact, through the element we call iron, everything lighter in atomic weight is made from hydrogen inside of stars. Atoms heavier than iron must be built inside of supernovae from lighter elements or other energetic events, such as inside a collider.

It isn't false to think of a "building block of everything" as being hydrogen, but none of this is generally thought of as empowering knowledge in the 21st century, nor a proof of what Dr. Gabriel Oyibo claims is a "theory of everything" which inexplicably includes a deity in the role of building the universe to a pattern. Everyone who cares to know about particle physics already knows this. The parts that do not apply on a daily basis to their work in physics are ignored. In some parts of this world, I'm sure a lot of this may seem to be miraculous. I'm not suggesting that it isn't so, nor even that we yet know everything there is to know about a hydrogen atom.

But in science we always wish to know a bit more. Protons and neutrons, for example, are composed of different color/flavor quarks, gluons, mesons, color charge, and the strong nuclear force. As far as I'm aware, we haven't hit bottom yet. And it's even possible that we have missed noticing something along the way. But for whatever reason(s), I'm not yet seeing it in what he wrote.
 
danshawen said:
An atom of hydrogen is made up of an electron and a proton. Neutrons not bound by atomic nuclei decay quickly into a proton, and electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. So hydrogen (along with just a few other particles) could be said to be a building block from which everything else can be made. In fact, through the element we call iron, everything lighter in atomic weight is made from hydrogen inside of stars. Atoms heavier than iron must be built inside of supernovae from lighter elements or other energetic events, such as inside a collider.

It isn't false to think of a "building block of everything" as being hydrogen, but none of this is generally thought of as empowering knowledge in the 21st century, nor a proof of what Dr. Gabriel Oyibo claims is a "theory of everything" which inexplicably includes a deity in the role of building the universe to a pattern. Everyone who cares to know about particle physics already knows this. The parts that do not apply on a daily basis to their work in physics are ignored. In some parts of this world, I'm sure a lot of this may seem to be miraculous. I'm not suggesting that it isn't so, nor even that we yet know everything there is to know about a hydrogen atom.

But in science we always wish to know a bit more. Protons and neutrons, for example, are composed of different color/flavor quarks, gluons, mesons, color charge, and the strong nuclear force. As far as I'm aware, we haven't hit bottom yet. And it's even possible that we have missed noticing something along the way. But for whatever reason(s), I'm not yet seeing it in what he wrote.
Click to expand...

Yes I as well deemed this discover of Hydrogen trivial, 12 years ago I came to the same conclusion using visualization.
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Will you mind dissecting the math, that is actually the reason I made this thread to check the mathematical validation of the equations.
Click to expand...
The link you provided does not contain any equations. So what, exactly, would you like dissected?

You do at least recognize the wording of some of his claims (like "solved the theory of relativity") are gibberish, right?
 
Beer w/Straw said:
The link in OP is racist:

The white scientific community tried to question his findings and wrote articles like “Dr Gabriel Oyibo: Genius or Madman?” :But that is what they do; Try to discredit an Original Man when re-introduces to them something that was already invented by the ancient Black man.

WTF is "The white scientific community"? I'm white, but I don't know if "white" scientists would be more offended by the accusation of not seeking knowledge or racism.

This article is crap and probably politically motivated.

Next I could be reading how women are inferior... Screw off!
Click to expand...
You are correct Emily I agree the link is racist I don't care about the insults from either the supporters or the critics am just here to analyze the math and overall construct of the claims Gij,j=0
I as well found the personal comments of the article distasteful.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
An atom of hydrogen is made up of an electron and a proton. Neutrons not bound by atomic nuclei decay quickly into a proton, and electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. So hydrogen (along with just a few other particles) could be said to be a building block from which everything else can be made. In fact, through the element we call iron, everything lighter in atomic weight is made from hydrogen inside of stars. Atoms heavier than iron must be built inside of supernovae from lighter elements or other energetic events, such as inside a collider.
That is really a stretch to say hydrogen is the only building block of the universe! Well, it is actually absurd.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Russ_Watters said:
Sure. But first, please answer the other question in that post of mine you quoted.
Click to expand...
Yes of course Mr. Watters any claims made without evidence may be potentially gibberish I am not personally invested in these claims but I am curious as the how objective they may be. It's obvious they may be immediately dismissed by many because of the religious origins that inspired the work,but if that is what it takes to unify the laws of physics I will not allow ego to get in the way of objective analasis causing me to jump to conclusions before I assess and comprehend the full extent of the data provided.
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Read this link then let me know what you think.
http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/physics/Animalu_Alex_GAGUTreview1.pdf
Click to expand...

I got lost here:

Once in possession of such an “e xtended” relativity principle, one can elucidate the
various speculations about the origin of the universe discussed on pp.95-96 of GUT-I.
According to Charles Animalu[18], the (Biblical) creation story recorded in the Book
of Genesis and the (Big Bang) cosmological theory of evolution can be reconciled if
the speed Vword (of creation) of the Word of God that spoke the universe into existence
is related to the speed of sound (vsound » 300m/ s) and of light (c » 3´108m/ s) of
creation as follows:
v V c2 sound word = (3.12)
so that
Vword » c 2 / 300 = 9´1016 / 300 = 3´1014m/ s.
It would then follow that a created object (“universe”) moving with the speed of the
Word of God would experience a time dilatation (since the Biblical Age of 7000
years) by an amount
2
1
Lorentz transformation involving a superluminal relative speed, Vword . This gives the
light-years dimension of the universe (according to the Big Bang theory) as
701/(1-Vw2ord / c2 ) i 10 6 i,
v
c
i
c
V
sound
» word = =
where the factor i = -1 means that space and time are interchanged in the usual00 ´10 6 = 7´10 9 light-years, i.e., 7 billion light-years, (where 1 light-year
=10 7 ´ 3´10 8 m = 3´10 15m ), which is in reasonable agreement with experimental data.
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Yes of course Mr. Watters any claims made without evidence may be potentially gibberish I am not personally invested in these claims but I am curious as the how objective they may be. It's obvious they may be immediately dismissed by many because of the religious origins that inspired the work,but if that is what it takes to unify the laws of physics I will not allow ego to get in the way of objective analasis causing me to jump to conclusions before I assess and comprehend the full extent of the data provided.
Click to expand...
That doesn't address what I was asking except to imply that you don't know what "gibberish" is. Something that is gibberish can't be right or wrong. "Gibberish" means the claim doesn't even make any sense, so it can't even be analyzed, much less responded to. Do you understand that? Do you understand why "solved the theory of relativity" is gibberish? Dismissing something because it is gibberish is totally different from dismissing it because it has religious orgins. Do you understand that?

The reason why this is important is that you are asking people to analyze something and appear not to be able to understand the analysis you are getting back. So before I do any analysis for you, I'd like to be sure you are capable of understanding it, in principle.
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
It's obvious they may be immediately dismissed by many because of the religious origins that inspired the work
Click to expand...
And yet, so far, the claims haven't been dismissed "because of the religious origins". A fact you conveniently continue to ignore, but persist in insinuating otherwise.

but if that is what it takes to unify the laws of physics I will not allow ego to get in the way of objective analasis causing me to jump to conclusions before I assess and comprehend the full extent of the data provided.
Click to expand...
And one more time: introducing "god" CAN NOT unify the laws of physics because there are NO - none, not one - (supposed/ claimed) characteristics of "god" that are amenable to being put into a scientific equation. Something else you have persistently ignored.

You claim to want objective opinions on the possible *cough* validity of the work and refuse, point blank, to accept those opinions - in other words your own belief (or ego) is blinding you to any objective assessment, and rather than "jumping to conclusions" you appear to be sticking to a pre-formed one.

In short you're giving every appearance of being about as rational as Oyibo.
 
Russ_Watters said:
That doesn't address what I was asking except to imply that you don't know what "gibberish" is. Something that is gibberish can't be right or wrong. "Gibberish" means the claim doesn't even make any sense, so it can't even be analyzed, much less responded to. Do you understand that? Do you understand why "solved the theory of relativity" is gibberish? Dismissing something because it is gibberish is totally different from dismissing it because it has religious orgins. Do you understand that?

The reason why this is important is that you are asking people to analyze something and appear not to be able to understand the analysis you are getting back. So before I do any analysis for you, I'd like to be sure you are capable of understanding it, in principle.
Click to expand...
Am not here to talk about "solved the theory of relativity" yes that statement is giberish. My energy, patience and time is limited, I am not yet retired so I will not respond to contentless posts, profanity, opinions, semantics, lack of comprehension from the reader, or anything else I deem unworthy of my time.
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Am not here to talk about "solved the theory of relativity" yes that statement is giberish. My energy, patience and time is limited, I am not yet retired so I will not respond to contentless posts, profanity, opinions, semantics, lack of comprehension from the reader, or anything else I deem unworthy of my time.
Click to expand...
Then what are you here to talk about?
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Am not here to talk about "solved the theory of relativity" yes that statement is giberish.
Click to expand...
Well that's very odd considering that that's the title of the article you posted in your first post! Typically, the point of a first post in a thread is to set-up the topic the person wants to discuss!

Anyway, I am glad you recognize that that is gibberish. So you should recognize why scientific people have a negative reaction to that article itself and the other content you've linked -- and that the reaction has nothing whatsoever to do with peoples' opinions of religion.
My energy, patience and time is limited, I am not yet retired so I will not respond to contentless posts, profanity, opinions, semantics, lack of comprehension from the reader, or anything else I deem unworthy of my time.
Click to expand...
Nor will we. That said, Walter posted a nice snippet of the math in the PDF you linked in post #50 and, as I said I would, responded with my impression of it in post #52. To be a bit more blunt: it's mathematical and verbal gibberish. Complete nonsense. Most of it would need to improve substantially in order to just be wrong, and the one thing that is sufficiently coherent to make sense is the badly wrong citation of the speed of sound.
 
Last edited:
Russ makes a good point. Speed of sound in what? Air? Water? A solid? Traveling in what? Outer space? It makes a rather large difference to most calculations. Sound is not usually something that propagates at relativistic speeds. Where did the sound originate? Isn't G-d supposed to be everywhere at once? Why did he suddenly get localized? Is the Earth suddenly the center of the universe AGAIN?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top