## A point for debate

• Imagine you are sipping tea or coffee while discussing various issues with a broad and diverse network of students, colleagues, and friends brought together by the common bond of physics, graduate school, and the physics GRE.

dattaswami
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:03 am

### A point for debate

Question:

The electrons are revolving around the neucleus:

Where from they get energy for this? Either its mass is not changing or it is derving any energy from out side? in such case energy is supplied or created anew to rotate the electrons (that means energy is created for revolving electrons, this is against conservation of energy that energy can be neither created not destroyed), where from this energy comes>

The electron is revolving in its orbit and each revolution is an expenditure of some small kinetic energy. People say that since this kinetic energy is very much lesser than the fundamental unit of energy, electron is not losing energy and is not collapsing in the nucleus in long run. They say that the orbit is static. This argument appears in the following way.

Suppose somebody is selling 10 fruits for 1 paisa (1 cent). You are taking only one fruit and you may say that since you cannot pay 0.1 paisa (0.1 cent), the fruit is taken free of cost. In this way, you take each fruit and put in your bag. The seller has to agree with your argument since the paisa cannot be divided into fractions. But after taking 10 fruits, the seller will demand you to pay 1paisa!

Hence you must conclude this point in two ways. The first way is that the energy needed for each revolution of electron is supplied from cosmic energy, since neither the potential energy associated with electron nor any portion of the particle nature of electron is converted into kinetic energy.

The second way is to treat this point beyond logic of measurement of such infinitesimally small kinetic energy compared to the fundamental unit of kinetic energy that can be measured by the human being. This second point is covered under the topic of Hiaasen berg’s uncertainty principle, but even this point needs the requirement of first point because the accumulation of several revolutions can become equal to the measurable fundamental unit of energy.

The final solution for this is to accept the unimaginable power of the absolute unimaginable God through this event, which can be called as miracle that indicates the existence of unimaginable God. You should not apply the tautology, which is the logic of the relative items to the ultimate absolute unimaginable God.

quizivex
Posts: 1035
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:13 am

### Re: A point for debate

dattaswami
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:03 am

### Re: A point for debate

quizivex wrote:

schwiss
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:49 am

### Re: A point for debate

Can a god imagine him/her/itself?

dattaswami
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:03 am

### Re: A point for debate

God is known to God

God is known to God and hence the prerequisite condition is fulfilled. For human beings, the unimaginable God can exist like the unimaginable miracle.

Veda says that the knower of God is God Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva…). Hence, though God is unknown to human beings, He is known to Himself. If you say that the existence of anything must satisfy the prior condition of its knowledge, the rule is not violated since God is having His knowledge. Then, you may say that God exists for God only since the prior condition is limited to God only. This is not correct because you are agreeing the existence of an unimaginable miracle also in the world. When the miracle is demonstrated, it is unimaginable but its existence in the world is accepted. Hence, the existence of unimaginable item like miracle exists in the case of human beings.

God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items

The existence of Para Brahman (God) is not the existence of non-God items in which the knowledge of the non-God items is a prerequisite condition. Para Brahman exists as per the statement of Veda.

All the non-God items are worldly objects, which are parts of creation. All these items are known first and then only their existence is mentioned. When you say that a pot exists, it means that you are stating the existence since you know the pot already. Hence, the existence of any worldly item requires the knowledge of that item already. If you do not know anything about an item, you will not say that it exists. Hence, the existence always requires the prior knowledge of the item. But God is beyond world and is unimaginable since God is not known.

Hence, the existence of God is not similar to the existence of the worldly items. Since the existence of worldly items, which requires prior knowledge of the item, is absent in the case of God, God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items and hence God is non-existent (Asat) in this sense. This does not mean that God is really non-existent because God really exists as per Veda (Astityeva….) and hence God exists (Sat).

(The concept of unimaginable nature requires the relative existence of the concept of imaginable nature).

To recognize day, night should relatively exist. Similarly, to recognize the existence of unimaginable nature, relatively the imaginable nature must exist. If everything is unimaginable there is no significance of the very concept of unimaginable nature. Therefore, the world with imaginable items exists, so that the unimaginable nature of God can be recognized significantly through relativity.

God is known as unknown

(God is known as unknown. This is said in Veda and in Gita also)

Veda says that angels and sages came to know only one point about the God after long hectic discussions. That single point is that God is unknown (Yasyaamatam Tasyamatam…). Even Gita says that no body knows anything about God (Mamtu veda Nakaschana.). Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God is clearly established by the sacred scriptures.

dattaswami
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:03 am

### Re: A point for debate

schwiss wrote:Can a god imagine him/her/itself?

Reason for the unimaginable nature of God
The unimaginable God has no spatial dimensions

Everything in this world which has spatial dimensions is imaginable. The spatial dimensions may be very minute but can be recorded through sophisticated instruments and thus the minute entity becomes imaginable. Only an entity not having any spatial dimension becomes unimaginable. Therefore, the reason for the unimaginable nature is only the absence of spatial dimensions. Such an entity must be beyond space.

The third phase is the process of creation of this Universe from such unimaginable entity. There is a logical necessity for the generator of the Universe, which essentially includes space, not to have the spatial dimensions. The logic in the generation processes of worldly items is that the cause exists even in the absence of the effect. The lump of mud exists even if the pot is absent.

The mud is the cause and pot is the effect. The imaginable entity having no spatial dimensions must be the cause of this Universe having spatial dimensions. The reason for this is that in the absence of the Universe, which means the absence of the space, the unimaginable entity having no spatial dimensions can exist. The absence of spatial dimension means the absence of space or Universe only. Therefore, the unimaginable God having no spatial dimensions must be the cause and the Universe or space having spatial dimensions must be the effect.

WhoaNonstop
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:31 am

### Re: A point for debate

Do you have a question related to the Physics GRE or the admission process to any school?

-Riley

grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

### Re: A point for debate

dattaswami wrote:The electrons are revolving around the neucleus:

False. Retake quantum mechanics. Try again.

HappyQuark
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am

### Re: A point for debate

dattaswami wrote: The existence of Para Brahman (God) is not the existence of non-God items in which the knowledge of the non-God items is a prerequisite condition. Para Brahman exists as per the statement of Veda.

First, let me start off by saying how refreshing it is to see that ridiculous double talk and the ability/willingness to speak confidently on topics the speaker clearly doesn't understand is not strictly the domain of the batshit crazy, American Christians.

dattaswami wrote:Hence, the existence of any worldly item requires the knowledge of that item already.

Just so we are clear, you believe that an item doesn't start to exist until we believe it exists? How could this possibly be any more backwards. I'm worried that you may have entirely bypassed the early stages of development in which you first experience and are engrained with object permanence.

dattaswami wrote:Hence, the existence of God is not similar to the existence of the worldly items. Since the existence of worldly items, which requires prior knowledge of the item, is absent in the case of God, God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items and hence God is non-existent (Asat) in this sense. This does not mean that God is really non-existent because God really exists as per Veda (Astityeva….) and hence God exists (Sat).

I think it's cute that after all of your arguments, your final and ultimate conclusion is that God doesn't exist, only to try and salvage the argument by suggesting that of course he exists, because that is what your sacred texts say on the matter.

dattaswami wrote:Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God is clearly established by the sacred scriptures.

Your platitudes have demonstrated nothing and I'm amazed that you feel they have.

dattaswami
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:03 am

### Re: A point for debate

HappyQuark wrote:
dattaswami wrote:

I think it's cute that after all of your arguments, your final and ultimate conclusion is that God doesn't exist, only to try and salvage the argument by suggesting that of course he exists, because that is what your sacred texts say on the matter.

The absolute knowledge of the absolute God is impossible because the absolute God is unimaginable. The absolute God comes in human form to give you the experience of His existence, in absence of which, you may deny the very existence of the absolute God and may become atheist (Astityeva….Veda).

The identification of the human form in which the absolute God exists is the knowledge of God (Brahma Jnanam or Brahma Vidya).

The experience of the existence of the absolute God does not reveal any trace of the nature of the absolute God and hence God is always unimaginable. The only information about the absolute God is that God exists. “Aum Tat Sat” means that God exists and no more information about God is available.

The word Tat means that God is beyond your imagination. The word Aum denotes that God is the creator, ruler and destroyer of this world. These three adjectives indicate the works (Creation, rule and destruction) of God only and not the nature of the God. This is called as the information about the existence only (Sanmatra vada). God comes in human form, which is characterized by the awareness or chit.

Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:20 pm

### Re: A point for debate

dattaswami wrote:
HappyQuark wrote:
dattaswami wrote:

I think it's cute that after all of your arguments, your final and ultimate conclusion is that God doesn't exist, only to try and salvage the argument by suggesting that of course he exists, because that is what your sacred texts say on the matter.

The absolute knowledge of the absolute God is impossible because the absolute God is unimaginable. The absolute God comes in human form to give you the experience of His existence, in absence of which, you may deny the very existence of the absolute God and may become atheist (Astityeva….Veda).

The identification of the human form in which the absolute God exists is the knowledge of God (Brahma Jnanam or Brahma Vidya).

The experience of the existence of the absolute God does not reveal any trace of the nature of the absolute God and hence God is always unimaginable. The only information about the absolute God is that God exists. “Aum Tat Sat” means that God exists and no more information about God is available.

The word Tat means that God is beyond your imagination. The word Aum denotes that God is the creator, ruler and destroyer of this world. These three adjectives indicate the works (Creation, rule and destruction) of God only and not the nature of the God. This is called as the information about the existence only (Sanmatra vada). God comes in human form, which is characterized by the awareness or chit.

Dr. Cox has something to say to you.

dattaswami
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:03 am

### Re: A point for debate

HappyQuark wrote:
dattaswami wrote: The existence of Para Brahman (God) is not the existence of non-God items in which the knowledge of the non-God items is a prerequisite condition. Para Brahman exists as per the statement of Veda.

First, let me start off by saying how refreshing it is to see that ridiculous double talk and the ability/willingness to speak confidently on topics the speaker clearly doesn't understand is not strictly the domain of the batshit crazy, American Christians.

dattaswami wrote:Hence, the existence of any worldly item requires the knowledge of that item already.

Just so we are clear, you believe that an item doesn't start to exist until we believe it exists? How could this possibly be any more backwards. I'm worried that you may have entirely bypassed the early stages of development in which you first experience and are engrained with object permanence.

dattaswami wrote:Hence, the existence of God is not similar to the existence of the worldly items. Since the existence of worldly items, which requires prior knowledge of the item, is absent in the case of God, God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items and hence God is non-existent (Asat) in this sense. This does not mean that God is really non-existent because God really exists as per Veda (Astityeva….) and hence God exists (Sat).

I think it's cute that after all of your arguments, your final and ultimate conclusion is that God doesn't exist, only to try and salvage the argument by suggesting that of course he exists, because that is what your sacred texts say on the matter.

dattaswami wrote:Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God is clearly established by the sacred scriptures.

Your platitudes have demonstrated nothing and I'm amazed that you feel they have.

When the un-imaginable God enters a medium, He remains in His inherent un-imaginable form and at the same time attains the form of the medium also. But, the attainment of the form of the medium is by identifying Himself with that medium.

The attainment is not real because God is not really transformed into that form of medium. When the current enters a metallic wire, the current is identified with the metallic wire because you can experience the property of the current at any part of the wire. This does not mean that the current is really modified or transformed into the metallic wire. The current is a stream of electrons and it remains in its inherent form, which is the stream of electrons. The metallic wire is a chain of crystals.

The electrons are not transformed into crystals. But, the crystals are treated as electrons since the electrons are identified with the crystals. Hence, the current has two forms:

(1) its inherent form of stream of electrons and

(2) its identified form of chain of metallic crystals. The current remains always in its inherent form. Since we can treat the metallic wire as current for all practical purposes, the current has apparently attained the form of metallic crystals. The identified form is only assumed reality and the inherent form is the actual reality. Veda says that the un-imaginable God remaining in His inherent form attains the identified form of the medium also (Satcha tyatcha abhavat). The inherent form of the Absolute God is the un-imaginable nature. The identified form of the medium is the inherent form of the medium only and not the inherent form of God. Gita says that the un-imaginable God is not transformed into imaginable God at any cost (avyaktam vyaktimaapannam...).The un-imaginable God apparently attains the assumed form of the medium, which is the inherent form of the medium only. Since the medium is imaginable, the un-imaginable God becomes imaginable through the attained identified form of the imaginable medium.
All the words give the meanings of the processes taking place in the imaginable items of the imaginable creation.

When we say that God entered a medium, the entry denotes the process of entry of an imaginable item into another imaginable item. Thus, when we say that the current entered the wire, it means the imaginable stream of electrons entered the visible chain of metallic crystals. The stream of electrons may be invisible to the naked eye but is visible through powerful microscope. The imaginable item may be visible or invisible. The invisible may become visible through powerful instruments or at least to the powerful analytical logic. But, the un-imaginable is always invisible even to the most powerful analytical faculty. When we give this example as simile to the entry of God into a medium, the process of entry is not exactly valid because it is the entry of un-imaginable item into imaginable entity.

Since there is no second un-imaginable item, we cannot give the exact simile to the entry of un-imaginable God. Since the existence of the un-imaginable God is inferred through the un-imaginable events, we are inferring the entry of God into that medium. By the experience of the un-imaginable event, un-imaginable has not become imaginable. Only the existence of un-imaginable nature is experienced. If the existence is also not experienced, we have no authority to say that un-imaginable God exists. Therefore, Veda says that the existence of un-imaginable God is experienced, which is very essential and required as a proof for the existence of un-imaginable God (Asteetyeva…). Similarly, since we are experiencing the un-imaginable nature throughout the medium, we are assuming the probable pervasion of un-imaginable God all over the medium. For example, when Krishna lifted the huge mountain, the entire body of Krishna is withstanding the huge load of the hill and hence we infer that the entire body of Krishna is pervaded by the un-imaginable God (Antarbahishcha... Veda). Here again, the all over pervasion has no direct proof as in the case of air entering the room and pervading all over the room.

Both the air and the room are imaginable items and we cannot apply this process to the all over pervasion of un-imaginable God in the imaginable body of Krishna. Hence, we are only inferring the actions of un-imaginable God and these actions are also un-imaginable and cannot be compared to the imaginable processes taking place in the case of imaginable items. We only say that God entered or God pervaded etc. and these processes cannot be compared to the imaginable processes taking place in the imaginable items. The only information that we can give about the Absolute God is that He is un-imaginable. The only experience of the Absolute God is the inferred experience of existence of the un-imaginable nature. Such experience stands as the proof for the un-imaginable nature of God.