did god invented time as well?

[MMC78]

e=mc2 basically explains how time is a construct of space. 
Energy is matter times the speed of light (as measured by "time" as a travel through space) squared.  So, time is a "construct" of matter, which is essentially space.  (obviously anti-matter, m-theory, etc., could drag this out forever.

Shut the fuck up.  You're posting freshman philosophy drivel.  Show me the derivation of Einstein's equations.  There is no time in that equation and there's a shit ton more in physics than that single rabidly mis-understood equation. 

[Deicide]

Shut the fuck up.  You're posting freshman philosophy drivel.  Show me the derivation of Einstein's equations.  There is no time in that equation and there's a shit ton more in physics than that single rabidly mis-understood equation. 

Why is no one listening...Jebus! 

[wavelength]

e=mc2 basically explains how time is a construct of space. 
Energy is matter times the speed of light (as measured by "time" as a travel through space) squared.  So, time is a "construct" of matter, which is essentially space.  (obviously anti-matter, m-theory, etc., could drag this out forever.

So what you are saying is that because there is a scientific formula which contains references to space (as a pre-condition to mass) and time (as a component of velocity), this somehow proves that time should be a construct of matter? Doesn't that sound just a little bit far-fetched? How about v=x/t. It's a much simpler formular and contains both space and time directly.

By definition, there is nothing outside of reality that is real enough to contain reality. So reality is self-contained. A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence. So if energy is necessary for the existence of reality, reality must find that energy within itself. Because matter consists of energy according to (again) e=mc2, this applies to matter as well.  That is, the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter.  How could it do this?  By configuring itself in such a way that the matter it made would be “recognized” as such by other matter.

Did you write that or is it a quote? Is this supposed to be a scientific or a philosophic article? I really don't know where to start with, there are just too many inaccuracies and loose ends in this section. Let's just take one statement:

'That is, the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter ... by configuring itself ....'

How exactly is the universe supposed to do that? Who do you imagine when you say someone or something made its own matter? How can something 'configure' itself?

[I ETA PI]

So what you are saying is that because there is a scientific formula which contains references to space (as a pre-condition to mass) and time (as a component of velocity), this somehow proves that time should be a construct of matter? Doesn't that sound just a little bit far-fetched? How about v=x/t. It's a much simpler formular and contains both space and time directly.

Did you write that or is it a quote? Is this supposed to be a scientific or a philosophic article? I really don't know where to start with, there are just too many inaccuracies and loose ends in this section. Let's just take one statement:

'That is, the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter ... by configuring itself ....'

How exactly is the universe supposed to do that? Who do you imagine when you say someone or something made its own matter? How can something 'configure' itself?

The same way there can be an end to an infinite universe. 
You're looking for how the construction of the molecules that make up matter, I'm going a bit over your head here. 
These are takes of how some of the most intelligent and well respected minds in the world have described "God," "time," and "reality."

Perhaps you should visit some top universities and clear up these "loose ends" they can't get straight.

[wavelength]

The same way there can be an end to an infinite universe. 
You're looking for how the construction of the molecules that make up matter, I'm going a bit over your head here. 
These are takes of how some of the most intelligent and well respected minds in the world have described "God," "time," and "reality."

Perhaps you should visit some top universities and clear up these "loose ends" they can't get straight.

That's why I ask for references when I think something is quoted, to understand where it is coming from. Maybe the loose ends are cleared up in the complete article or book the quotes are from.

There is a lot of pseudo science out there and even more pseudo philosophy (mostly from very well respected scientists). I know a little bit about the scientific community and one thing is for sure: many well respected minds are criticized by other well respected mind for their leaps into fields they just do not have too much business tackling. Be asured that none of my critisism in this regard is in any way original. There are always much brighter people than ourselves who have thought through everything we talk about here and much more.

I hope I haven't offended you, I was only discussing the quotes you presented.

[I ETA PI]

That's why I ask for references when I think something is quoted, to understand where it is coming from. Maybe the loose ends are cleared up in the complete article or book the quotes are from.

There is a lot of pseudo science out there and even more pseudo philosophy (mostly from very well respected scientists). I know a little bit about the scientific community and one thing is for sure: many well respected minds are criticized by other well respected mind for their leaps into fields they just do not have too much business tackling. Be asured that none of my critisism in this regard is in any way original. There are always much brighter people than ourselves who have thought through everything we talk about here and much more.

I hope I haven't offended you, I was only discussing the quotes you presented.

It's all from the ISCID and MEGA society.  Mostly Chris Langan stuff, some rip off of Max Tegmart from the Princeton Institute for advanced studies.
Langan's stuff is kind of based off of Berkely's "proof" that we can know reality only through perception.
Either way, interesting stuff that all but a handful of people can even understand.  Intelligence is really amazing.  The unintelligent can't comprehend that they're not intelligent.  The intelligent have a difficult time expressing their knowledge to the unintelligent.  The unintelligent don't have the capabilities to grasp the extreme in abstract thought (or anything even close to it), which creates the belief that it must be false.  Most likely some take off of the average person's inability to move beyond the 1 to 1 correlation of ideas (eg: Bill is tall, a building is tall, Bill is a building)

It is said that new thought is a phenomenon of the furthest SD of intelligence (IQ>175)
The problem is, there's only a handful of people with that level of intelligence....and they don't have the ability to relay that new thought to the average man's level of thinking. 

Einsteing is probably as close as you can get.  I've always thought that had some correlation to his seeming to have Asperger's.  With Asperger's he has trouble  relating to anyone, which probably left some of the elitist rhetoric out of a lot of his stuff. 
An example of the opposite would be Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," which was meant to be written for the common man, but couldn't be further from that goal.

[MMC78]

Mostly Chris Langan stuff...

Oh god.  Seriously that guy is a loon and hasn't made a single decent contribution to society or philosophy.  His writing sucks as well.  Granted, he has a high IQ, but so does Stephen Wolfram another notoriously intelligent failure and quack.

As it's abundantly obvious that you don't have a working knowledge of physics why don't you start learning about the world by reading Richard Feynman's 6 easy pieces?  Granted he only had an IQ of 135 but I seem to recall something about him winning a nobel prize.

[wavelength]

Problem is that in a discussion, I can only relate to what is presented. And there's one thing I have learned, if something is wishy-washy drivel, it is, no matter who wrote it. E.g. I like Hawkins' books alot. Except for the part at the end where he always feels the need to prove that there is no God. As much as he is a genius, this stuff can be taken apart by any second-rate philosopher.

[Deicide]

Problem is that in a discussion, I can only relate to what is presented. And there's one thing I have learned, if something is wishy-washy drivel, it is, no matter who wrote it. E.g. I like Hawkins' books alot. Except for the part at the end where he always feels the need to prove that there is no God. As much as he is a genius, this stuff can be taken apart by any second-rate philosopher.

Warum gibst Du es nicht einfach zu? Du bist Vertreter des Dualismus und liberalen Theismus!

Ketzerei! Hier werden nur Atheisten und Christliche Fundamentalisten geduldet! 

[wavelength]

Warum gibst Du es nicht einfach zu? Du bist Vertreter des Dualismus und liberalen Theismus!

Ketzerei! Hier werden nur Atheisten und Christliche Fundamentalisten geduldet! 

I agree the world is so much easier (and much more fun) if there are only atheists and christian fundies
Which side should I take?

[I ETA PI]

Problem is that in a discussion, I can only relate to what is presented. And there's one thing I have learned, if something is wishy-washy drivel, it is, no matter who wrote it. E.g. I like Hawkins' books alot. Except for the part at the end where he always feels the need to prove that there is no God. As much as he is a genius, this stuff can be taken apart by any second-rate philosopher.

He's not hard to find.  You should go pick him apart when you get the chance. 

[I ETA PI]

Oh god.  Seriously that guy is a loon and hasn't made a single decent contribution to society or philosophy.  His writing sucks as well.  Granted, he has a high IQ, but so does Stephen Wolfram another notoriously intelligent failure and quack.

As it's abundantly obvious that you don't have a working knowledge of physics why don't you start learning about the world by reading Richard Feynman's 6 easy pieces?  Granted he only had an IQ of 135 but I seem to recall something about him winning a nobel prize.

Is this intro to physics?  Did your professor just finish telling you about that laughable bloke Feynman's joke on succeeding "despite" his IQ?  Why is it that every idiot that spent a semester in physics feels the need to bring him up?  It is clearly a weak attempt at negating the importance of intelligence by stating one person (a genius level of intelligence, for certain) that holds a high status in the intellectual community with a supposed IQ below 145. 

Boring.

[Deicide]

I agree the world is so much easier (and much more fun) if there are only atheists and christian fundies
Which side should I take?

Atheismus wird grundsaetzlich mit einem hoeheren Intelligenzquotient verbunden.

Die Mehrheit von Wissenschaftlern ist atheistisch.

Vernunft ist cooler als Dummheit.

Diese sind nur einige der mehrfach positiven Sachen, die man als Atheist haben kann.

Als Fundamentalist ist man grundsaeztlich nur auf Dummheit und Unwissenheit beschraenkt.

Die Wahl, die Du zu treffen hast, ist klar.

[wavelength]

He's not hard to find.  You should go pick him apart when you get the chance. 

I have, in my mind, last time I think while I was listening to the audiobook of Universe in a Nutshell 
And I would not even consider myself a philosopher at all.

Of course his method of trying to explain modern science is ingenious, fortunally the pseudo-philosophic stuff only makes up a very small part in his books.

But as I said, leading scientists get criticized all the time for their attempts at philosophy, by much greater minds than I am.

[wavelength]

Atheismus wird grundsaetzlich mit einem hoeheren Intelligenzquotient verbunden.

Die Mehrheit von Wissenschaftlern ist atheistisch.

Vernunft ist cooler als Dummheit.

Diese sind nur einige der mehrfach positiven Sachen, die man als Atheist haben kann.

Als Fundamentalist ist man grundsaeztlich nur auf Dummheit und Unwissenheit beschraenkt.

Die Wahl, die Du zu treffen hast, ist klar.

Hmm, I think I should try to obtain other opinions, yours might be just a little bit biased 

[Deicide]

Hmm, I think I should try to obtain other opinions, yours might be just a little bit biased 

Ich bin im Laufe meines Lebens viele Dinge genannt...aber voreingenommen noch nie!