You've typed "ChatGPT," but I'm Claude, made by Anthropic, not ChatGPT (which is made by OpenAI). I can still help with whatever you had in mind. What do you need? For example, I can: - Answer a question or explain a topic - Help write, edit, or summarize text - Work through code or a math problem - Brainstorm ideas
DOGE COINの進化
Found 0 image(s):
DOGE COINが進化しそうです。 ドージコインは、SpaceX,xAI,Tesla,Xを包含する巨大経済圏の共通決済通貨として再定義されそうです。
努力は報われなければならない？
Found 0 image(s):
The Art of Spendig Moneyという本が示唆に富んでいる。 本題のお金の使い方とはそれているが、「強欲と恐怖のライフサイクル」という章で「自分はこれだけ努力したのだから報われなければおかしいと考える人が […]
映画「黒の牛」
Found 0 image(s):
このブログのテーマでもある「十牛図」が映画「黒の牛」で取り上げられいるらしいので見てきました。 そもそも、禅の悟りへのロードマップなので、自ら体験しないとわかり得ない話ではあるという前提での疑問ですが、 １．禅僧は、「す […]
NVIDIA vs TESLA
Found 0 image(s):
CES2026での、NVIDIAのキーノートを見ているとNVIDIAも推進型自立走行車の分野に乗り出しています。TESLAのFSDと競業になりそうですが、どちらが優勢になるか興味があるところです。 NVIDIAのこの発表 […]
Oracle株その２
Found 0 image(s):
とりあえず、Oracle株については以下の２点を注視しておきたい。 １．Blue Owlの代役としてのエクイティパートナーが、2026年Q1頃には決定 ２．ミシガン州1ＧＷデータセンターが2026年Q1に予定通り着工され […]
Oracle株について
Found 0 image(s):
最近、Oracle株が下落し、Oracle大丈夫か？的な意見がありますが、どうもOracleはかつてのようなソフトウェア会社（ＤＢ会社）という認識は捨てたほうがよさそうですね。残存履行義務を担保にして、いかにして金融機関 […]
DOGE COINのSNS上での盛り上がり
Found 0 image(s):
最近、ドージコイン（DOGE）は、アメリカのドナルド・トランプ次期大統領がイーロン・マスク氏を「政府効率化局（Department of Government Efficiency、略称：DOGE）」の長官に任命したこと […]
DOGE COIN動向
Found 0 image(s):
１．米国の暗号資産政策の最新動向 先週行われた米国大統領選挙では、ドナルド・トランプ前大統領が再選を果たしました。トランプ氏は選挙期間中、米国をビットコインの超大国にすることを公約し、暗号資産業界から多額の支援を受けてい […]
DOGE COIN 価格上昇要因
Found 0 image(s):
【価格上昇の要因分析】 ドナルド・トランプ氏の次期大統領決定後、ドージコイン（DOGE）の価格は顕著な上昇を見せました。この背景には、イーロン・マスク氏のトランプ陣営への積極的な協力と、政府効率化省（Department […]
ChatGPT-4o with canvas
Found 0 image(s):
最近では、いろんな調査はPerplexityの方がGPTよりいいなと思っていましたが、ChatGPTの進化も止まりません、この with canvas（ベータ版）は、原稿作成にはめちゃくちゃ便利です。見出しつけてくれとか […]
When Can Science Say It Doesn't Need God?
Found 0 image(s):
In a post on a Facebook discussion forum, a commenter wrote: "All I know is that there is no place for God in any scientific theory." The response I gave him is provided here:
“You know this much, but you do not know the whole story. Scientists do not pay much attention to philosophers, but they highly respect one philosopher, and that philosopher is Hume. He stated that we cannot leap to the conclusion, based on a limited number of past observations, that what happened in the past will continue to happen in the future. No matter how many times we have seen 'A' happen in the past, we have always seen 'B' follow immediately after 'A'. From this, we cannot draw the conclusion that every time we see 'A' happen in the future, we will see 'B' follow 'A'. In the future, it could very well happen that 'A' is observed, but 'B' does not follow 'A'.
“You wrote that there is no place for God in any scientific theory. It is true that, until now, science has not needed God. However, you cannot use your current knowledge to prophesy that science will never need God in the future. You are not an astrologer or a fortune-teller that you can make such a prediction—or that even if you do make a prediction, it will turn out to be completely accurate.
“Only if science can one day explain everything from the origin of the universe to everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen in this universe, without bringing in an imaginary God, can science confidently claim that it has no need for God.
“However, if it is ultimately found that there remains a gap somewhere in the scientific explanation, and despite thousands of years of effort, that gap cannot be filled by any scientific explanation, then questions will begin to arise about whether what science has assumed as an axiom until now is actually true. Science assumes that it does not need to go outside of nature to explain the world. That very assumption of science will then be called into question.
“German scientist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote in one of her blog posts that it might take one thousand years to get answers to all of science's questions. It would be wise to wait until then.”
Scientists have failed to invalidate believers' claim
Found 0 image(s):
Scientists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal. The word non-spatiotemporal is the adjective form of no spacetime. That means as per scientists the source from which spacetime has emerged is not within any spacetime. As nothing can exist without spacetime, so the source from which spacetime has emerged can be called the source of all existence. And this source of all existence is not within any spacetime.
Believers say that God is spaceless and timeless and that this God is the source of all existence. So, as per the believers, the source of all existence is not within any space and time.
So, both believers and non-believers are saying the same thing that the source of all existence cannot lie within any spacetime.
Now, somebody may argue that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ and ‘spaceless and timeless’ are two separate terms and that they do not indicate the same thing. But this argument will be a bad argument. Because although scientists are using the terms spacetime and non-spatiotemporal, yet in practice they are treating space and time as two separate entities. They are also using two different symbols for these two entities space and time.
So, it is quite immaterial as to whether we say that the source of all existence is not within any spacetime, or that it is not within any space and time.
Therefore, from all this above we can conclude that scientists have failed to invalidate the believers’ claim that the source of all existence cannot lie within any spacetime.
Is God omnipotent and omniscient?
Found 0 image(s):
I made a post like this on my Facebook page: "There is a creator of this universe—from this, can we conclude that the creator is omniscient and omnipotent?"
In the comment section of that post, a Facebook friend wrote that if I had faith in the Upanishads, I would say that the creator of the world is omnipresent. There is no point in His created world where He is not present! He exists, or His influence is active, at every point in spacetime.
I wrote back to him: "I made this post because atheists usually assume God to be omniscient and omnipotent and then try to demonstrate what logical fallacies arise if God possesses these two attributes. By pointing out these fallacies, they arrive at the conclusion that the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God is practically impossible. There is a huge loophole in this logic, which I hadn't been able to catch all this time. Today, I suddenly did. So, this can be considered a true breakthrough.
“Let me explain the whole thing a bit. We know a world exists. Those of us who believe in the existence of God say that this world has a creator. However, from the premise that 'this world has a creator,' one cannot conclude that the creator is omniscient and omnipotent. The creator of the world must definitely possess as much knowledge and power as is required to create a world. But that does not mean the creator has to be omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, by incorrectly assuming the world-creator to be omniscient and omnipotent, and then showing all the logical fallacies that those concepts give rise to, one cannot claim that God does not exist. Yet, atheists have been doing exactly this for a long time.
“Of course, the entire blame for this cannot be placed on the atheists. If blame must be placed on anyone, it should be placed on those who attributed these 'Omni-characteristics' to God in the first place.”
Then the Facebook friend replied that he has understood. My logic is correct. He has heard this kind of talk from atheists before. Then he gave an example: If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone so heavy that He Himself cannot lift it! He then mentioned that his previous comment, however, spoke of Omnipresence, not Omnipotency.
I wrote back to him: "In India, Brahman is described as *Nirguna* (without attributes) and *Nirupadhika* (without qualifications). No attribute, no qualification can be imposed on Brahman. Yet, in the religions originating from the Middle East, attributes and characteristics were imposed on God one after another. And incidentally, modern science was born in a part of the world where all the influence and dominance belonged to a religion originating from the Middle East. Therefore, it became very convenient for atheists to use modern science to shatter the core narrative of that religion into pieces."
I then again commented: “Atheists do not talk much about omnipresence; the main targets of their attack are God's omniscience and omnipotence.”
Later, I made another post on my Facebook page: "All the criticisms atheists have made against God to date, by assuming God to be omniscient and omnipotent, have become hollow from today onward."
A Falsehood spread about God
Found 0 image(s):
For many years, scientists have been propagating a falsehood about God. That falsehood is as follows: "The God-hypothesis does not predict anything that can be tested," or "The God-hypothesis does not have any observational consequences."
But I showed back in 2001 that this is entirely false. I demonstrated that the God-hypothesis can predict something that has been tested and verified. I showed that if, at the very beginning of the universe, there existed a spaceless and timeless entity (God has always been described this way), then due to the presence of such a spaceless and timeless being, the values of space and time must necessarily be relative — and science has indeed shown that the values of space and time are relative.
Because God is spaceless and timeless, the values of space and time in relation to God are absolutely zero. But in all other cases, the values of space and time are non-zero. Therefore, the values of space and time must be relative.
However, this cannot be considered definitive proof of God's existence, because God's consciousness cannot be proven in this way. Even if, instead of God, there existed a spaceless and timeless unconscious entity, the values of space and time would still be relative.
Scientists who are working on quantum gravity are now saying that space and time cannot be fundamental — they are emergent. If scientists ultimately conclude that space-time is emergent, it would mean that the source from which space-time emerged cannot itself be located within space-time, since space-time did not exist before its own emergence.
And since nothing can exist without space-time, the source from which space-time originated can be identified as the root of all existence — and that source must be spaceless and timeless. Although scientists are not calling it "spaceless and timeless"; instead, they are calling it non-spatiotemporal.
If scientists continue down the path they are currently on, they will eventually arrive not at a spaceless and timeless conscious being at the beginning of the universe, but rather at a non-spatiotemporal unconscious entity.
However, I showed as early as 2012 that such an unconscious entity must possess consciousness — otherwise, the spacelessness and timelessness of light cannot be explained in any way.
So there's no need for atheists to worry about proving God's existence. They can simply go on spreading the same falsehood — that "God-hypothesis does not predict anything."1
Footnote:
1. Translated from Bengali with the help of ChatGPT.
On Reincarnation
Found 0 image(s):
A few years back I wrote some articles whose title was this: My encounter with God. In one of those articles I wrote the following which was mainly about my paranormal experiences:
Did I hope that these paranormal phenomena would help me prove the existence of God? Yes, I did. This is because I myself possessed, and still posses, one paranormal ability. If “somewhere in this world somebody is going to die”, then I will have a premonition of his/her death days before, and sometimes in one or two rare occasions, even months before, the occurrence of such death. I cannot exactly say who is going to die, but I can with absolute certainty say that very soon I am going to receive the death-news of someone with whom I even may not have any blood-relation at all. Here there are three circles within which such deaths can occur: 1) Family circle, 2) friends circle and 3) last but not the least, the celebrity circle. These celebrities may be local, regional, national, or even international. The only criterion that is applicable in each case here is that the death-news of the person must have to reach me somehow. Now I must explain how I come to know beforehand that “somewhere in this world somebody is going to die”. There are some common symptoms. One such symptom is that suddenly my mood will become off. I will lose all the positive meanings of life. I will lose interest in everything. Everything of this life will seem to me an illusion, a Maya. Whatever I do at present, whatever I propose to do in future, appear to me as nothing but vanity. “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity”. When this mood comes heavily on me, I become dead sure that somewhere on earth somebody is going to draw his/her last breath very soon. Then one day again everything will become normal, and I will again find that life is worth living. And I will then get the news of someone’s death either through the newspaper, or maybe over phone, or by some other means, depending on within which circle such death has actually occurred. Another common symptom is that during those days my throat will be choked. It will become extremely difficult for me to utter even a single word. I will feel in those days that if I try to talk to someone, then I will definitely begin to cry. So when it becomes urgently necessary to talk to others, I have to suppress this propensity to cry with some tremendous effort and then only I can speak out. And this constant urge to weep will always be there. I will not understand why I am so prone to weeping. But when I will get the death-news of someone, everything will be clear to me.
Then there is another symptom, the most mysterious of the three. I will feel as if I have been transported somehow in another time, in another century that has long been lost. This time is not the present time, but another time of some bygone century, long, long ago lost from the surface of the earth. The people that I am seeing around me are also not of this present world, but they are all from that lost world. The road I am trotting is also of that lost world. I will feel as if I am in a world that was here on earth many, many centuries ago, but that has gone forever. Thus there will be a veil of unreality over everything surrounding me. When I will have this feeling, I will again know with certainty that “somewhere in this world somebody is going to die”. Although in the first two cases the suffering I have to go through is simply unbearable, still I must have to confess here that when I do have this particular type of experience, I relish it very much. This is because if one can see this present world as an already lost world of some bygone century, then nothing can be more mysterious than that. Physicists may not agree here, but I think this experience is equivalent to some sort of time-travel, because I am seeing this present century as a bygone century. As if my consciousness has somehow gone many centuries ahead of time, and from there it is seeing this present century retrospectively as a long-lost century. If this is not time-travel, then what is time-travel? During such an experience my wife appeared to me so distant in time that it seemed as if she was from some pre-historic period. So I was seeing a woman of some pre-historic age just in front of me! Although it was only an appearance, because it could not be real in any way, still her whole bodily appearance as a woman of some pre-historic century seemed very much real to me.
2
But several times it happened that none of these three signs were met, but some death occurred somewhere in this world. What happened in all those cases was this: several times I felt as if I was going to die, but in the end it turned out that I had not died at all, but someone else had died somewhere else. That is, in all these cases my feeling that I was going to die was an indication of someone else's death somewhere else. This feeling that I was about to die, was once so intense that at that time I was filled with lamentation at the thought of my impending death. At that time I was so sure of my death that I was deeply broken inside thinking what would be the helpless condition of my wife and daughter after my death. My wife is sick, and my daughter is still immature, and she hasn't finished her college yet. How will my wife manage the family with her sick body, how will she do the daily marketing or solve other problems of the family, and how will she raise her daughter? I can still well remember how I lamented that I could not fulfill the minimum duty of establishing my daughter in life before my death, before I had to leave this world, leaving both of them quite helpless. After spending three days in lamentation in this way, finally on the fourth day I was shown a vision. That day was Monday, the time would be a little before or after 12 noon. I was going north from the southern room of the ground floor, and had just advanced a foot or two into the middle room, when I saw the scene before my eyes. A human vagina floated in the air in front of me, and what I saw with my naked eyes was this: something whitish was moving from my forehead towards that vagina. This incident happened in the year 2009.
After this terrible experience, I spent several days in a state of obsession, I was in a daze for those few days. Then one day after the rush passed, I was going somewhere by bus. On the bus, I was thinking what God is trying to tell me by showing me this scene? Does God mean that after death man re-enters the mother's womb? Is she reborn again? However, a case-by-case analysis leads to the same conclusion. That is why for the first few days I had a strong feeling that I was about to die. During these few days I never for a moment doubted that I might not die, I was so sure of my death. Then I was shown entering the mother's womb. All this means only one thing: after death, man re-enters the mother's womb, is reborn. That is, by giving this experience, God gave me the message that there is rebirth.
3
Case 1: Here is an incident from my daughter's childhood. My daughter started going to school when she was only 2 years and 11 months old. This incident happened before she started going to school. One day suddenly it appeared that she started speaking in a completely unknown foreign language. After speaking in an unknown language for some time in this way she would sometimes stop on her own, then start again the next day. It went on like this for a long time. Her fluency in this unknown foreign language started as suddenly as one day, and stopped suddenly one day. I couldn't understand a single word of what she was saying, nor did anyone else in the house seem to. I was once a member of a film club, and because of that I have seen films from many countries around the world, I have heard the languages of many countries by ear. Based on that experience I can say that the language my daughter spoke at that time was not an Indian language; neither was it Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, or Urdu; neither was it English, French, German, or Italian; most likely it was Spanish or Portuguese. But there's no way to say for sure, since I never once tried to record her words on tape in that unknown language. When my daughter was only a few months old, I recorded her crying on tape, but I don't know why the thought of recording her words in this unknown foreign language never once crossed my mind. But now I realize what a fatal mistake I have made, for I have thereby lost a great evidence of reincarnation, perhaps forever. If the words she uttered at that time were caught on tape, later attempts could be made to find out what language it was, whether the words she uttered had any meaning at all, and if indeed they had any meaning at all, was it really possible for her to know that language at that age, and if it was really impossible, how could she speak it so fluently? But by not having her words on tape, I missed out of all this forever, and what's the point in wailing like a fool now? It was impossible for my daughter to speak another language at that age, and it was even more impossible to speak that language continuously, because how was it possible for her to know another language at that age? The only possible explanation for this phenomenon is that maybe for a few days she regained the memories of her previous birth, during which time she spoke the language of her previous birth. But as soon as that memory was lost, her speaking in that unknown language suddenly stopped one day.
Case 2: Another such case came to my knowledge from the son of my borther-in-law. His only son spoke only in Hindi from the time he learned to speak until he was two-and-a-half years old and could not be fed anything but dal and roti till that age of two-and-a-half years. The elders used to say among themselves that the boy must have been a Bihari (a resident of Bihar Province of India) in his previous birth, hence his speaking in Hindi and eating dal and roti. Later, however, both his habits gradually changed, he learned to speak Bengali and got used to Bengali food. But even here, no evidence can be adduced that he spoke Hindi and not Bengali, because no one ever thought of recording any samples of his speaking in Hindi.
Of course, there is no reason to be so upset now that one or two pieces of evidence have been missed, because the future parents are there. My advice to them: If you find that your children when first learning to speak are speaking in a language that doesn't sound like any language you know, then without delay, arrange to capture their words on an Android phone first. Now that Android phones are almost in every household, there should be no difficulty in making audio-video recording. But make not one, but several audio-videos like that. Later, it will be examined whether the words they have uttered have any meaning or not. And that is how we must collect evidence of reincarnation, because without evidence atheists cannot be convinced of anything. Millions of babies are born in this world almost every day. The world's population is growing at a rate of nearly twenty million every year. So if a period of 100 years is considered, then in these 100 years, about two billion newborn babies will appear worldwide. If it is possible to observe a million children out of these two billion children in the next 100 years, and if these observations give us several thousand instances in which the child is seen speaking a language other than her mother tongue, then in the future the phenomenon of reincarnation could be established on a solid foundation. It would not be a difficult task at all. And when God has given me indication that there is rebirth, then there is definitely rebirth. Now all we have to do is gather evidence for reincarnation. And the way to collect this evidence can surely be understood from Case 1 and Case 2 described above. If a Bengali child is reincarnated after her death and born in a Bengali household, then she will speak Bengali after learning to speak in her childhood and there will be no indication that she has been reincarnated and born again in a Bengali household. But if a non-Bengali or a non-Indian is reincarnated in a Bengali household after her death, and if she is seen in her childhood speaking a language which does not sound like Bengali at all, then that can certainly be regarded as a proof of reincarnation. Finding a person who can remember the incidents of her previous birth may not be so easy, but I think the examples described in Case 1 and Case 2 can be found if properly searched. New babies are and will be appearing in the world every day. So we have plenty of time and opportunity to gather evidence for reincarnation.
Natural-Supernatural
Found 0 image(s):
Thanks to scientists we now know that massless particles have some strange properties. Time stops completely in the case of massless particles, and massless particles do not have to travel any distance at all, as all distances in their case shrink to zero. For example, for massless particles the distance from one end of the universe to its other end is zero. So massless particles can be present at both ends of the universe at the same time. What are these properties of massless particles to be called? Are they to be called natural characteristics, or supernatural characteristics? If these are called natural features, a problem of some sorts will arise; Again, if these are called supernatural properties, then another kind of problem will arise.
We all know that God is said to be timeless; It is also said about him that he can be present at both ends of the universe at the same time due to his omnipresence. God is also said to be a supernatural being. So it turns out that it has been said about a supernatural entity called God that it has just the same properties as those of massless particles. If God exists (here I am not saying that God exists, I am saying if God exists), and if we call these properties of massless particles natural properties, then the question that will naturally arise will be: how can a supernatural being have any natural properties? Supernatural beings are supposed to have supernatural characteristics only, how can supernatural beings have natural characteristics? Again, if we call these properties of massless particles supernatural properties, then this time the question will be: as science is supposed to deal with the natural world only, then how is it that science has also begun to deal with the supernatural as well?
How can this problem be solved? It can be solved in this way: If God exists, then rather than calling him a supernatural being, it is better to acknowledge that God is also a part and parcel of this vast universe, and that he is not an entity outside of this universe, which is why natural science has a scientific explanation for his properties.
A new argument for the relativity of space and time
Found 0 image(s):
If there is a God, and if that God is omnipresent, then God being omnipresent will be present at each point of the universe at the same time. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe is infinite, so the distance from one end of the universe to its other end will also be infinite. But for God, this infinite distance will not remain an infinite distance, it will amount to zero distance, since God will be present at both ends of the universe at the same time. But to us human beings, this infinite distance will remain an infinite distance. So the question that will arise here is this: can the distance which is infinite for one being, be reduced to zero for another being? Again it takes an eternity to travel an infinite distance, which is true for us, but not true for God. The truth about God is that God would require no time, because that infinite distance will be zero for God. So here the pertinent question will be: can the amount of time that is an eternity for one being, be reduced to zero for another being? If Newton's theory were the last word of science, then scientists would answer both the above questions in the negative, because in Newton's theory both space and time are absolute. But science did not stop with Newton alone; Einstein came and changed the whole picture. In his theory, space and time are relative. Special theory of relativity has shown what is an infinite distance to us, becomes zero distance for massless particles; again, what is an eternity for us, becomes zero time for those particles.
Therefore, if God exists, then space and time must be relative because God is omnipresent. And science has also shown that this is indeed the case.
Here, one question may arise as to why only massless particles have these strange properties, and why not any other particle? This question can also be answered. Many years ago, in another of my writings (Who created God?), I have shown that if God is there, then that God will have zero mass, because the total energy of the universe is zero. God is massless, so it is quite natural and expected that only massless particles would manifest God's attributes and not other particles.
Life is a big joke, brothers. I get this new argument when my age is 77.
Is mystical experience a hallucination?
Found 0 image(s):
Mystics who have claimed that they have a direct vision of God
have always described that God as spaceless and timeless. But mystical experiences have been discarded by secular-minded people as merely a hallucination.
Here is a Medical Definition of Hallucination: A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. A hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there.
That means a person having a hallucinatory experience cannot have any knowledge about reality.
Physicists in this 21st century are saying that spacetime is emergent. For example, theoretical physicist Sean Carroll who once wrote an article showing that God is not a good theory has recently published a book whose title is this: Something deeply hidden: quantum worlds and the emergence of spacetime.
Spacetime is emergent means there is something more fundamental than spacetime from which spacetime has emerged. This something more fundamental than spacetime cannot be within any spacetime. That is because there cannot be any spacetime before its emergence. As it cannot be within any spacetime, so it will be spaceless and timeless. However, physicists describe this as non-spatiotemporal, a new scientific term that replaces old spaceless and timeless. Space and time were two different entities in the pre-relativistic era. In the post-relativistic one, they have become one single entity: spacetime. So physicists can no longer use the old term spaceless and timeless; instead, they use the new term non-spatiotemporal.
That means physicists are now saying that there is something spaceless and timeless from which our known spacetime has emerged.
Now, my question is: If mystics had seen only a hallucination, then how did they come to know that there was something spaceless and timeless long before physicists had come to know that? That is because, as per definition, a hallucination cannot give any knowledge about reality.
Why Nature is red in Tooth and Claw
Found 0 image(s):
In one YouTube comment thread, a person wrote the following:
He had watched a documentary on animals and sea life. He was watching how vicious nature could be. Sharks were killing seals, and alligators were killing zebras that crossed the river, lions were killing their prey, and on and on. After seeing all these, he started thinking about whether God was also like this. If we look at nature, we will see things appear calm on the one hand, and on another, things look so chaotic. Was it that God also meant for everything to be as it was? People will be killing other people, and then there will be all the crime, sickness, poverty, starvation, suffering, etc.? If one thinks about it, it all happens in nature, and we humans are all part of nature. So, if this is God's nature as well, then we are all doomed!
The following was my reply to him:
There is an easy explanation for that. It was God’s method of family planning and birth control.
Think of a situation when there were only herbivores on this planet and no carnivores to keep their numbers in check and balance. What would have happened after millions and millions of years? All these herbivores would have gone extinct due to an extreme food shortage; the earth would also have turned into a desert. In that situation, no new species could appear on earth.
But God created this universe to bring someone in it with whom he would be able to communicate. So, to preserve the greens on earth, God had to adopt this cruel method. That is because man had not yet appeared on the scene at that period that could use their intelligence to invent an effective means of birth control for these herbivorous animals.
Once man has appeared on earth, now all these carnivorous animals can go extinct. There is no need for any wildlife conservation for these carnivores.
In Defense of Emergent Spacetime
Found 0 image(s):
My justification for writing this post is that only emergent spacetime can ultimately lead to God. So, we must defend it in every possible way.
Recently, I have posted the following in one Facebook Discussion Group:
'Physicists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, and it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal.
‘As we have come to know that spacetime is emergent, so some questions arise here that I am giving below:
1) Was spacetime fundamental or emergent when the universe began to expand from the Big Bang?
2) If it was fundamental, then is there any scientific evidence in support of it?
3) If it was fundamental, how and when has it become emergent by losing its fundamental nature?
4) However, if it was emergent, would it not require the prior presence of something non-spatiotemporal from which only it could emerge?’
In reply, a person commented that we have not come to know that. It is only a possibility that only a few theoreticians are investigating. These theoreticians have yet to extend it from 3D to 4D that is essential, and until they do, they cannot even start for the possible observation that might verify the speculation.
But I think there is a reason why those physicists may not be entirely wrong who say that spacetime is emergent.
In an earlier article1, I have shown that if anything exists at all, there would be something spaceless and timeless. That is because otherwise, there will be an infinite regress. Below, I am going to repeat the same article here, but with some modification.
We can show by some simple logic that if anything exists at all, then either there will be an infinite regress or that there will be something spaceless and timeless that will stop that regress.
Now let us start from the earth. Earth exists within the solar system.
The solar system exists within the Milky Way galaxy.
The Milky Way galaxy exists within the local cluster of galaxies.
This cluster again exists within some super-cluster of galaxies.
This super-cluster of galaxies exists within the universe that contains trillions of other galaxies.
WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY NOW IS PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF BUILDING AN ARGUMENT ONLY. NOTHING IS ASSERTED HERE.
The universe exists within the multiverse that contains trillions of other universes.
This multiverse exists within some super-multiverse that contains trillions of other multiverses.
This super-multiverse exists within some super-duper multiverse that contains trillions of other super-multiverses.
This super-duper multiverse exists within some supra-multiverse that contains trillions of other super-duper multiverses.
This supra-multiverse exists within some supra-dupra multiverse that contains trillions of other supra-multiverses.
And in this way, this chain will go on up to infinity.
However, if we want to stop the infinite regress, we would have to break the chain somewhere in the middle. We would have to stop at some level.
If we decide that we would stop at the universe level, we would have to say that nothing is there beyond the universe. The universe as a whole would be neither in any space nor in any time. That is because there would be nothing outside the universe.
If we stop at the multiverse level, we would have to say that the multiverse as a whole would be neither in any space nor at any time. That is because there would be nothing outside the multiverse.
In each case, the entity being as a whole neither in space nor in time would be spaceless and timeless.
So, the entity that will stop the infinite regress will always be spaceless and timeless.
From above, we can conclude that if anything exists at all, then there would be two possibilities:
1) Possibility one: There would be an infinite regress;
2) Possibility two: There would be something spaceless and timeless that will stop that regress;
I do not profess to know whether there is an infinite regress or no such regress. NOBODY KNOWS. However, if there is no such regress, then we can say that there was something spaceless and timeless at the beginning from which everything has originated. In that case, we cannot say that those physicists are wrong who are saying spacetime is emergent.
Scientists have failed to invalidate believers' claim
Found 0 image(s):
Scientists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal. The word non-spatiotemporal is the adjective form of no spacetime. That means as per scientists the source from which spacetime has emerged is not within any spacetime. As nothing can exist without spacetime, so the source from which spacetime has emerged can be called the source of all existence. And this source of all existence is not within any spacetime.
Believers say that God is spaceless and timeless and that this God is the source of all existence. So, as per the believers, the source of all existence is not within any space and time.
So, both believers and non-believers are saying the same thing that the source of all existence cannot lie within any spacetime.
Now, somebody may argue that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ and ‘spaceless and timeless’ are two separate terms and that they do not indicate the same thing. But this argument will be a bad argument. Because although scientists are using the terms spacetime and non-spatiotemporal, yet in practice they are treating space and time as two separate entities. They are also using two different symbols for these two entities space and time.
So, it is quite immaterial as to whether we say that the source of all existence is not within any spacetime, or that it is not within any space and time.
Therefore, from all this above we can conclude that scientists have failed to invalidate the believers’ claim that the source of all existence cannot lie within any spacetime.
A Falsehood spread about God
Found 0 image(s):
For many years, scientists have been propagating a falsehood about God. That falsehood is as follows: "The God-hypothesis does not predict anything that can be tested," or "The God-hypothesis does not have any observational consequences."
But I showed back in 2001 that this is entirely false. I demonstrated that the God-hypothesis can predict something that has been tested and verified. I showed that if, at the very beginning of the universe, there existed a spaceless and timeless entity (God has always been described this way), then due to the presence of such a spaceless and timeless being, the values of space and time must necessarily be relative — and science has indeed shown that the values of space and time are relative.
Because God is spaceless and timeless, the values of space and time in relation to God are absolutely zero. But in all other cases, the values of space and time are non-zero. Therefore, the values of space and time must be relative.
However, this cannot be considered definitive proof of God's existence, because God's consciousness cannot be proven in this way. Even if, instead of God, there existed a spaceless and timeless unconscious entity, the values of space and time would still be relative.
Scientists who are working on quantum gravity are now saying that space and time cannot be fundamental — they are emergent. If scientists ultimately conclude that space-time is emergent, it would mean that the source from which space-time emerged cannot itself be located within space-time, since space-time did not exist before its own emergence.
And since nothing can exist without space-time, the source from which space-time originated can be identified as the root of all existence — and that source must be spaceless and timeless. Although scientists are not calling it "spaceless and timeless"; instead, they are calling it non-spatiotemporal.
If scientists continue down the path they are currently on, they will eventually arrive not at a spaceless and timeless conscious being at the beginning of the universe, but rather at a non-spatiotemporal unconscious entity.
However, I showed as early as 2012 that such an unconscious entity must possess consciousness — otherwise, the spacelessness and timelessness of light cannot be explained in any way.
So there's no need for atheists to worry about proving God's existence. They can simply go on spreading the same falsehood — that "God-hypothesis does not predict anything."1
Footnote:
1. Translated from Bengali with the help of ChatGPT.
The One
Found 0 image(s):
The two theories of special and general relativity clearly show the relationship between space, time, energy, and matter. Special relativity has shown that energy and matter are equivalent; energy can be converted into matter, and matter into energy. Again, general relativity shows that space, time, and matter are so interrelated that there cannot be any space-time without matter; similarly, there cannot be any matter without soace-time.
Since there cannot be any space-time without matter, and since there can neither be any matter without soace-time, therefore it can be asserted that space-time and matter have originated from one single source only. If the source of space-time and the source of matter were different, then there could not be such an interrelation between space-time and matter. Again, since energy and matter are identical, therefore we can assert that space, time, energy, and matter have originated from one single source only.
This interrelation between space-time and matter shows us that at the root of all things is the One, and that One is neither space, nor time, nor energy, nor matter, though space, time, energy, and matter have originated from that One only. If that One is neither space, nor time, nor energy, nor matter, then what is that One? It is not possible for anyone to say anything about that One, which is why Indian philosophy has only said neti, neti about that One; it is not this, it is not that, etc.
A new argument for the relativity of space and time
Found 0 image(s):
If there is a God, and if that God is omnipresent, then God being omnipresent will be present at each point of the universe at the same time. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe is infinite, so the distance from one end of the universe to its other end will also be infinite. But for God, this infinite distance will not remain an infinite distance, it will amount to zero distance, since God will be present at both ends of the universe at the same time. But to us human beings, this infinite distance will remain an infinite distance. So the question that will arise here is this: can the distance which is infinite for one being, be reduced to zero for another being? Again it takes an eternity to travel an infinite distance, which is true for us, but not true for God. The truth about God is that God would require no time, because that infinite distance will be zero for God. So here the pertinent question will be: can the amount of time that is an eternity for one being, be reduced to zero for another being? If Newton's theory were the last word of science, then scientists would answer both the above questions in the negative, because in Newton's theory both space and time are absolute. But science did not stop with Newton alone; Einstein came and changed the whole picture. In his theory, space and time are relative. Special theory of relativity has shown what is an infinite distance to us, becomes zero distance for massless particles; again, what is an eternity for us, becomes zero time for those particles.
Therefore, if God exists, then space and time must be relative because God is omnipresent. And science has also shown that this is indeed the case.
Here, one question may arise as to why only massless particles have these strange properties, and why not any other particle? This question can also be answered. Many years ago, in another of my writings (Who created God?), I have shown that if God is there, then that God will have zero mass, because the total energy of the universe is zero. God is massless, so it is quite natural and expected that only massless particles would manifest God's attributes and not other particles.
Life is a big joke, brothers. I get this new argument when my age is 77.
Why spacetime is not fundamental
Found 0 image(s):
Now, we all know that spacetime is not fundamental, because physicists are saying so. But, do we know the reason why spacetime cannot be fundamental?
This is a physics question as well as a philosophy question.
If we say that X is a fundamental ingredient of the universe, then we will have to admit that whatever will exist in it, will need X for its existence. Nothing can exist without it.
However, if there is something in the universe that does not need X for its existence, then X cannot be called a fundamental ingredient of the universe.
Now, we want to know why spacetime is not fundamental. So, we will ask this question now: Is spacetime a fundamental ingredient of the universe? And we will try to find out an answer to this question.
Our task is very simple here. We will ask just one more question here: Is there anything in the universe that does not need spacetime for its existence?
If the answer is yes, then we know for sure that spacetime is not a fundamental ingredient of the universe.
And the answer is yes here, because there is at least one entity in the universe that does not need any spacetime for its existence. That entity is light. Einstein’s special theory of relativity has shown that a photon occupies zero space for zero time because both the travel time and the travel distance become zero for light.
It is also true that we cannot do anything without light; light is so much essential for us. And the irony is that this most essential entity for us does not need any spacetime for its existence. It can do without it.
So, how can we say that spacetime is a fundamental ingredient of the universe? How can we say that it is fundamental?
Spaceless, Timeless, and Immaterial
Found 0 image(s):
1) Physicists have shown that the total energy of the universe is zero.
2) SR has shown that mass and energy are equivalent.
3) Again GR has shown that space, time, and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any spacetime without matter; similarly, there cannot be any matter without spacetime. There is a saying of Einstein on this: "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Source: Google search)
Based on the three above, it can be shown that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.
The total energy of the universe being zero, it can be shown that its total matter is also zero.
The famous equation of Einstein from SR shows that E is equal to m multiplied by c squared. If E is zero now, then m will be equal to zero divided by c squared, which will also be zero. So, the total energy of the universe being zero, Einstein's famous equation shows that in that case, the total mass of the universe will also be zero.
Now, the below portion is from Google search:
//What is mass in Physics with example? Mass can be best understood as the amount of matter present in any object or body. For example, a table, a chair, your bed, a football, a glass, and even air has mass. ... That being said, all objects are light or heavy because of their mass.//
As the total mass of the universe is zero, so the total amount of matter present in the universe will also be zero.
As the total matte of the universe is zero, so we can say that the universe as a whole is immaterial.
If the total matter of the universe is zero, its total spacetime will also be zero because as per GR, there cannot be any spacetime without matter.
What does it mean that the total spacetime of the universe is zero? It means that the universe as a whole is spaceless and timeless, or non-spatiotemporal, if we use the new scientific term that has replaced the old one spaceless and timeless.
We have already seen that the universe as a whole is immaterial. Now we have seen that it is also spaceless and timeless. So, we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.
Again, the total energy of the universe always remains zero. Therefore, the universe as a whole will always remain spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.
That means the universe as a whole does not change at all.
As the universe as a whole does not change at all, so we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, changeless, and immaterial.
That nicely explains why the wave function of the universe does not contain any time variable.
However, the above conclusion will be falsified if anybody in the near or distant future can show that the total energy of the universe has a non-zero value.
In Defense of Emergent Spacetime
Found 0 image(s):
My justification for writing this post is that only emergent spacetime can ultimately lead to God. So, we must defend it in every possible way.
Recently, I have posted the following in one Facebook Discussion Group:
'Physicists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, and it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal.
‘As we have come to know that spacetime is emergent, so some questions arise here that I am giving below:
1) Was spacetime fundamental or emergent when the universe began to expand from the Big Bang?
2) If it was fundamental, then is there any scientific evidence in support of it?
3) If it was fundamental, how and when has it become emergent by losing its fundamental nature?
4) However, if it was emergent, would it not require the prior presence of something non-spatiotemporal from which only it could emerge?’
In reply, a person commented that we have not come to know that. It is only a possibility that only a few theoreticians are investigating. These theoreticians have yet to extend it from 3D to 4D that is essential, and until they do, they cannot even start for the possible observation that might verify the speculation.
But I think there is a reason why those physicists may not be entirely wrong who say that spacetime is emergent.
In an earlier article1, I have shown that if anything exists at all, there would be something spaceless and timeless. That is because otherwise, there will be an infinite regress. Below, I am going to repeat the same article here, but with some modification.
We can show by some simple logic that if anything exists at all, then either there will be an infinite regress or that there will be something spaceless and timeless that will stop that regress.
Now let us start from the earth. Earth exists within the solar system.
The solar system exists within the Milky Way galaxy.
The Milky Way galaxy exists within the local cluster of galaxies.
This cluster again exists within some super-cluster of galaxies.
This super-cluster of galaxies exists within the universe that contains trillions of other galaxies.
WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY NOW IS PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF BUILDING AN ARGUMENT ONLY. NOTHING IS ASSERTED HERE.
The universe exists within the multiverse that contains trillions of other universes.
This multiverse exists within some super-multiverse that contains trillions of other multiverses.
This super-multiverse exists within some super-duper multiverse that contains trillions of other super-multiverses.
This super-duper multiverse exists within some supra-multiverse that contains trillions of other super-duper multiverses.
This supra-multiverse exists within some supra-dupra multiverse that contains trillions of other supra-multiverses.
And in this way, this chain will go on up to infinity.
However, if we want to stop the infinite regress, we would have to break the chain somewhere in the middle. We would have to stop at some level.
If we decide that we would stop at the universe level, we would have to say that nothing is there beyond the universe. The universe as a whole would be neither in any space nor in any time. That is because there would be nothing outside the universe.
If we stop at the multiverse level, we would have to say that the multiverse as a whole would be neither in any space nor at any time. That is because there would be nothing outside the multiverse.
In each case, the entity being as a whole neither in space nor in time would be spaceless and timeless.
So, the entity that will stop the infinite regress will always be spaceless and timeless.
From above, we can conclude that if anything exists at all, then there would be two possibilities:
1) Possibility one: There would be an infinite regress;
2) Possibility two: There would be something spaceless and timeless that will stop that regress;
I do not profess to know whether there is an infinite regress or no such regress. NOBODY KNOWS. However, if there is no such regress, then we can say that there was something spaceless and timeless at the beginning from which everything has originated. In that case, we cannot say that those physicists are wrong who are saying spacetime is emergent.
God is not Purely Imaginary
Found 0 image(s):
God is not purely imaginary, because God has also been described as spaceless and timeless.
In this 21st century, physicists are no longer saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying that it is emergent.
If an entity is emergent, then in general, that will mean these three things:
1) The emergent entity cannot have any existence prior to its emergence.
2) The emergent entity (A) cannot emerge from just anything or nothing; it can emerge from some particular entity or entities (B) only.
3) B must pre-exist before the emergence of A.
The above three will also be true for emergent spacetime as well.
Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. Physicists are describing this source as non-spatiotemporal.
'Non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. The special theory of relativity has combined the two separate entities space and time into one single entity: spacetime. So, scientists can no longer use the old term ‘spaceless and timeless’; instead, they use the new term ‘non-spatiotemporal’.
So, emergent spacetime has shown that there is something spaceless and timeless (aka, non-spatiotemporal) in nature from which our known spacetime has emerged.
This is the objectively real part in man's imagination of God.
As we have come to know that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, so some questions arise here that are given below:
1) Was spacetime fundamental or emergent when the universe began to expand from the Big Bang?
2) If it was fundamental, then is there any scientific evidence in support of it? If yes, then how did scientists get that evidence? And also, from where did they get that evidence?
3) If it was fundamental, then how and when has it become emergent by losing its fundamental nature?
4) However, if it was emergent, then would it not require the prior presence of NSE from which only it could emerge?
Moreover, if an entity is emergent, then how can it be the case that it was fundamental at an earlier time, and that it has become emergent afterwards by losing its fundamental nature? Would it not be more reasonable to assume that if it is emergent now, then earlier also it was emergent, and that it will remain so in future as well?
One can easily understand what will be the implication of this. Spacetime being emergent, would require the prior presence of this NSE for its emergence from it, when the universe began expanding from the Big Bang.
In the CCC model of Roger Penrose, this NSE would have to be eternal and everlasting, because every time a big bang has occurred or will occur, whether in the infinite past, or in the far distant future, spacetime would have required, or would require, the prior presence of this NSE for its emergence from it.
The Ultimate Justification for a Creator
Found 0 image(s):
Part I
Two reasons can be given as to why an entity may be spaceless and timeless:
1) Reason A: If the entity is not within any space and time, then it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. We can also say that it will be spaceless and timeless by default;
2) Reason B: If the entity is placed within some space and time, and if it is forcefully deprived of space and time, then also it will become spaceless and timeless.
For 1), we can give the example of the entity from which our known spacetime has emerged. In this 21st century, physicists are no more saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying it is emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, not being within any spacetime, it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. However, physicists are describing it not as spaceless and timeless, but as non-spatiotemporal. Whatever may be the nomenclature, the concept remains the same in both cases; the source from which spacetime has emerged is not within any spacetime and so, it is naturally non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless.
For 2), we can give the example of black hole singularities. Earlier, it was known to us that black hole singularities were point-like. Now it has been known that they are not point-like but rather one dimensional ring-like. In case of black hole singularities, whether they are point-like or ring-like, space and time almost contract to zero due to a tremendous gravitational force.
Now suppose there is one more entity within the universe that is also spaceless and timeless, but for which neither Reason A nor Reason B can be thought of as its cause. Here I am speaking about light. Light is within the universe, but as per SR both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So, within the space and time of the universe, light occupies zero space for zero time, which is tantamount to saying that light is spaceless and timeless.
Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason A? No, we cannot say so, because we know very well that light is within the space and time of the universe.
Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason B? No, we cannot say so, because we are not aware of any force that is active in case of light causing space and time contract to zero for light.
If light is spaceless and timeless neither due to Reason A, nor due to Reason B, then what is the reason due to which it is so?
Moreover, no black hole is as big as the universe. So, the length that is almost contracted to zero in case of black hole singularities is nothing compared to the entire width of the universe. But for light, the entire width of the universe is contracted to zero. If a tremendous gravitational force is responsible for the contraction of a black hole’s size of length almost to zero, then which force is responsible for the contraction of the entire width of the universe to zero, in case of light?
Does anyone have a clue about it? Can anybody say what the cause is due to which light is spaceless and timeless?
Part II
I have already stated that we do not know the reason due to which light is spaceless and timeless. But, whatever may be the reason of this, it can be shown that this reason cannot lie within the space and time of the universe.
Let us suppose that X is that reason and that X is within the universe. If X is not spaceless and timeless itself, then it is not possible for it to make another entity spaceless and timeless. So, X must have to be spaceless and timeless first, and then only it can make another entity spaceless and timeless. But, if X is also spaceless and timeless, then we will have to ask the same question about X that we were earlier asking about light: Being already placed within the space and time of the universe, how has it become spaceless and timeless? So, now we will have to search for the cause due to which X has become spaceless and timeless. Therefore, from this we can conclude that the cause due to which light is spaceless and timeless cannot lie within the space and time of the universe. It must lie outside any space and time.
The only entity that we know of that lies outside any space and time is the source from which our known spacetime has emerged. The existence of this entity in nature has already been confirmed once physicists have declared that spacetime is emergent. So, here is one entity that is spaceless and timeless by default, and for which we need not have to seek any further cause due to which it has become spaceless and timeless, because we already know that it is not within any space and time.
Now, if scientists can somehow show that this lifeless, mindless, and unconscious entity but that happens to be spaceless and timeless simply by default, can NATURALLY make another entity (aka light) spaceless and timeless, then this universe WILL NEVER NEED ANY GOD.
However, if they fail to do so, then only we will be compelled to posit some sort of consciousness here, because it is possible for a conscious being only to know how it is spaceless and timeless.
Science is the ultimate arbiter of truth and so, let science show that there is a natural explanation here.
We will be waiting for that explanation.
Do time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed?
Found 0 image(s):
So far as I can remember, there are these two equations in Einstein’s special theory of relativity:
l1 = l(1-v2/c2)1/2……. (1)
t1 = t((1-v2/c2)1/2……. (2)
From the above two equations, two conclusions can be drawn that are as follows:
1) Time and distance are not absolute, they are relative;
2) At light speed, both travel time and travel distance become zero.
Now reality may be such that
1) Time and distance are only relative, but in no circumstances they become zero (A);
2) Time and distance are not only relative but at one particular case, they also become zero (B).
If reality is A, then the above two equations are not required at all to represent that reality; it can be equally represented by the following two equations:
l1 = l(1-v2/xc2)1/2……. (3)
t1 = t((1-v2/xc2)1/2……. (4)
In (3) and (4) above, x will have a value greater than one but less than infinity. But it cannot have a value equal to one or infinity. If the value of x is one, then we will go back to Einstein’s equations, whereas if its value equals infinity, then we will have Newton’s equations instead. From (3) and (4) above, it can clearly be seen that time and distance will be relative as before, but they will never be zero even at the speed of light due to the presence of the factor 1/x in the equations.
Now, I know very well that it is not possible to experimentally demonstrate what is actually happening at the speed of light and so, it is reasonable to doubt whether time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed. However, there is an alternate way to verify it.
Suppose scientists have repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment or any newer version of it, and suppose that they have arrived at equations (3) and (4) instead of equations (1) and (2). Then, based on these two equations (3) and (4), they can say that the shrinkage of time and distance to zero at light-speed is only a myth.
But, nature knows better than any one of us what is actually happening at the speed of light and so, whenever an actual experiment is performed with light and an interferometer, it is always returning us equations (1) and (2) only and not equations (3) and (4) even for a single time. This is nature’s indirect way to inform us that we are not doing any mistake when we are saying that time and distance become zero for light.
Scientists usually do not question this and so, we can find such statements in their writings on SR:
1) ‘For the light itself, the whole universe is only zero millimeters long.’ – Sascha Vongehr, in The Fundamental Nature of Light, Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011);
2) ‘At the speed of light there’s no time to cover any distance, but there’s also no distance to cover.’ – Ask a Mathematician/Ask a Physicist
There is a reason as to why scientists do not question this. The reason is that they know very well that they are in the domain of physics, and not in the domain of metaphysics. In the domain of physics, if they want to challenge something, then they cannot do so by using logic and reason only. Rather, they will have to experimentally demonstrate that that particular thing is wrong; they will have to experimentally demonstrate that equations (1) and (2) must be replaced by equations (3) and (4). So far, no one has been able to do this. So far, no one has been able to falsify SR.
There is one more reason why we can say that time and distance indeed shrink to zero at light-speed. Main-stream physicists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental, but emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, by stating that spacetime is emergent, physicists have already acknowledged the existence of something spaceless and timeless in nature from which our known spacetime has emerged. I know that physicists are describing this source as non-spatiotemporal, but I also know this that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ is only a new scientific term that replaces our old term ‘spaceless and timeless.’ If there is something spaceless and timeless in nature, then it is quite obvious that science would show how anything can be spaceless and timeless, because it is the job of science to provide an explanation for every phenomenon, event and effect in nature. In SR, we get those requisite explanations for spacelessness and timelessness. So, although we cannot directly verify whether time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed, yet we can say that emergent spacetime is an indirect validation of it.
Addendum:
[Once I posted a question in a Facebook Discussion Group (Great Philosophical Questions): ‘If God does not exist, then it can be said that it is the big bang that has brought everyone and everything within the universe into existence. Whatever has been brought into existence by the big bang has been given certain life-span. Many stars in the sky have a life-span of several billion years; we human beings have a life-span of a few decades; some insects have a life-span of a single day only. Can we think of anything that has also been brought into existence by the big bang, but that has been given no life-span?’
One commentator Race Dowling replied to the above with this: ‘What you are asking in essence is if anyone provide an example of something that exists that never existed. The answer to that is no.’
Me to Race Dowling: ‘You have correctly understood my question, but your answer was incorrect. It is a fact of nature that light has also been brought into existence, but that light has been given no lifetime. As per SR, the travel time and travel distance become zero for light and so, light occupies zero space for zero time. This is as good as saying that light does not exist. But, on the other hand, we cannot see anything without light.’
Race Dowling to me: ‘It is a legitimate conjecture that photons have no spatial dimensions along their path of travel making them essentially two dimensional, but it hasn’t been proved. (I wish it were because I postulated that in grad school). Likewise baryons have the appearance of being 4 dimensional as they have spins of ½, you need to rotate them 730 degrees to see the same face. All of these dimensional conjectures are controversial and have their detractors.’
So, I have to write this article in order to making it clear to Dowling that the shrinkage of time and distance to zero at light-speed is neither conjectural nor controversial, after reading which he could not utter a single word against my rebuttal.]