On 12/07/2021 10:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 23:12:15 +0100, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 11/07/2021 20:56, James Heaton wrote:
>>
>>>> My recent book is partly concerned with the way pillars of the
>>>> community have in the past been wilfully blind to child sexual abuse.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0968MTDXR
>>>
>>> I have bought a copy, arrived this week.

>> Excellent! Let me know what you make of it!

> I bought a copy too. It arrived in about ten seconds.

If that was a /paper/ copy, let us know the courier!

--
Max Demian

On 11/07/2021 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article<sccc1f$dga$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>> Also, the laws evolve. Newton described gravity as the mutual attraction
>> of two bodies according to their masses. Einstein realised that the
>> "law" that had served for such a long time could not explain how a
>> cannon ball and a feather (which have significantly different masses)
>> reach the ground at the same time if there s no air to be moved out of
>> the way and came to the conclusion that falling objects stay still while
>> the universe moves around them.
>
> Your outline of his conclusion is correct. But I don't recall it being
> based on: " Einstein realised that the 'law' that had served for such a
> long time could not explain how a cannon ball and a feather (which have
> significantly different masses) reach the ground at the same time if
> there's no air to be moved out of the way.."
>
> Can you reference where you got that?
>
> Jim
>
It was in a TV science programme fronted by Brian Cox, explaining the
work of other scientists. I can't remember what it was called. It was
broadcast a few weeks ago.

One thing that was done was to visit a training establishment that was
created to train astronauts for trips into space, where they had a large
hall that could be (almost) emptied of air to simulate the vacuum of
space. In it they set up a live experiment of dropping a bowling ball
(easier to obtain than a cannon ball these days) and two feathers in a
vacuum, and that did show for the that they all reached the ground at
exactly the same time.

Jim

On 12/07/2021 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
> On 10/07/2021 15:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>> If the entity created the universe, then the laws that describe how the
>> universe functions would have been created at the same time.
>>
>> Also, the laws evolve. Newton described gravity as the mutual attraction
>> of two bodies according to their masses. Einstein realised that the
>> "law" that had served for such a long time could not explain how a
>> cannon ball and a feather (which have significantly different masses)
>> reach the ground at the same time if there s no air to be moved out of
>> the way and came to the conclusion that falling objects stay still while
>> the universe moves around them. So what we regard as laws are really
>> only best guesses until we find something better. Newtons Law then
>> becomes just a very accurate rule of thumb.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the cannon ball/feather example can be explained by
> Newton's physics.
>
Not quite. The cannon ball has a greater mass than a feather. Therefore
the Newton theory indicates that the mutual attraction of two bodies,
and given that the earth is the constant on one side, the greater mass
of the cannon ball should mean it reaches the ground a fraction sooner
than the lower mass of a feather. When an experiment to demonstrate what
actually happens in a vacuum did not show that theoretical difference in
time, it reduced Newton's Law to the status of best guess.

Jim

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:08:57 +0000 (UTC),
MrSpud_qx@kjq9s38yonfarhrnmfnd4.gov.uk wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:56:02 +0100
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>The circumference of planet Zog on the other side of the universe
>>divided by its diameter will be the same value as any equivalent
>>measurement of any circle anywhere in existence, regardless of the
>
>C/D != pi for a circle drawn on a sphere the same as the angles of a triangle
>on a sphere do not add up to 180 degrees . Similarly it won't hold for a 3D
>sphere warped in the 4th dimension.

If you are able to say that something is not equal to the value of pi,
then you must have a defnition for the value of pi. Inventing a
different situation where a different numerical value is achieved by
the customary computation is just moving the goalposts.

The usually accepted definition for the value of pi assumes a flat
surface, and wherever the value is calculated or measured in real
space or thoughtspace using that definition, it is the same.

Rod.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:46:54 +0100
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>Not quite. The cannon ball has a greater mass than a feather. Therefore
>the Newton theory indicates that the mutual attraction of two bodies,
>and given that the earth is the constant on one side, the greater mass
>of the cannon ball should mean it reaches the ground a fraction sooner

Oh really? Whys that then?

>than the lower mass of a feather. When an experiment to demonstrate what
>actually happens in a vacuum did not show that theoretical difference in
>time

What a shock.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:54:03 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:08:57 +0000 (UTC),
>MrSpud_qx@kjq9s38yonfarhrnmfnd4.gov.uk wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:56:02 +0100
>>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>The circumference of planet Zog on the other side of the universe
>>>divided by its diameter will be the same value as any equivalent
>>>measurement of any circle anywhere in existence, regardless of the
>>
>>C/D != pi for a circle drawn on a sphere the same as the angles of a triangle
>>on a sphere do not add up to 180 degrees . Similarly it won't hold for a 3D
>>sphere warped in the 4th dimension.
>
>If you are able to say that something is not equal to the value of pi,
>then you must have a defnition for the value of pi. Inventing a
>different situation where a different numerical value is achieved by
>the customary computation is just moving the goalposts.

Hardly inventing a situation - sea farers and map makers have had to take the
curvature of the earth into account since they first realise it wasn't flat.

>The usually accepted definition for the value of pi assumes a flat
>surface, and wherever the value is calculated or measured in real
>space or thoughtspace using that definition, it is the same.

You think? Draw a circle on a ball and measure the circles radius along the
balls surface then get back to me.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 09:05:55 +0000 (UTC),
MrSpud_3P@_14m0cwzcy8ja7lmbtb.biz wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:42:27 +0100
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>Where did the fact that 2+2=4 come from? Where did the fact that
>>seventeen is a prime number come from? Where did the value of pi or
>>the square root of two come from? None of these things "came from"
>>anywhere, they simply are what they are because they couldn't be
>>anything else.
>
>How do you know? We might not be able to conceive of such a thing but it
>doesn't make it impossible. There seems to be an assumption that mathematics
>is somehow fundamental but I think Godel proved that might not be the case.

Godel showed (I think) effectively that there exist some situations
that cannot be completely described by mathematical notation, but
there are plenty that can, and some that are so simple they hardly
require any linguistic or notational description at all.

Place two objects on a table. Even without thinking about words or
numbers, you can see how many objects you have. Now get another two
objects and place them with the first two, and again you can see how
many objects are present. If placing the objects together like this
resulted in one of them vanishing or an extra one appearing from
nowhere with no explanation, you might be tempted to believe in magic
because in reality this just doesn't happen. Putting two objects with
another two results in a total of four objects, however you count them
ofr describe the situation. There are some things, such as the above,
that are true regardless of notation or language, and must be true,
even in the abstract, anywhere in the universe.

Rod.

On 11/07/2021 10:29, Robin wrote:
> On 10/07/2021 10:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <5949753ce0charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
>> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> There are, in both Scotland & England, female Bishops. But the law
>>> should not concern tself with private members' clubs.
>>
>> So if a club decides murder is OK, we should allow it?
>>
>
> I'm not clear why a club that campaigns for a change in the definition
> of murder would be unlawful.
>

Hanged from a bridge with the feet just lapping in the water, in the
tradition of the wank^H^H^H^Hfreemasons?

On 11/07/2021 18:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:50:59 +0100, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:49:18 +0100, Indy Jess John
>>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> the crazy notion of a
>>>>> supernatural entity that created the universe, transcends the laws of
>>>>> physics but for some reason never breaks them
>>>>
>>>> Odd logic there.
>>>>
>>>> If the entity created the universe, then the laws that describe how the
>>>> universe functions would have been created at the same time.
>>>
>>> It's a crazy notion because if you claim there is an entity that
>>> created everything, the logic effectively contradicts itself. Nobody
>>> could have created the rules of mathematics and geometry, or the
>>> properties of numbers, on which the behaviour of physical reality
>>> depends. If there were a creator, it would have had to work within a
>>> universe in which it did not get to make all the rules, so not really
>>> omnipotent after all.
>>>
>> So where did it all come from then? :-)
>>
>> The big bang theory is just another name for the same thing!
>
>
> Where did the fact that 2+2=4 come from? Where did the fact that
> seventeen is a prime number come from? Where did the value of pi or
> the square root of two come from? None of these things "came from"
> anywhere, they simply are what they are because they couldn't be
> anything else. Nobody created them, in the usual sense of deciding how
> they should be, because nobody could have created them differently.
> The same argument must apply to all properties of numbers, thereby
> effectively the entire structure of mathematics. Some numerical
> properties, perhaps all of them, determine some of the ways, perhaps
> all of the ways, in which physical matter can behave. You only need to
> find one thing in the whole of existence that could not have been
> created - and as it turns out there are lots of them - and the concept
> of an omnipotent entity that created everything falls apart.

But God created Man, and Man created mathematics, a disgracefully
inconsistent farce when it comes to infinitesimals, sometimes
relied upon and sometimes ignored. I'm thinking, (I think, it
was 54 years ago!) of the derivation of the differential of sine to
cosine.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 08:59:13 +0000 (UTC),
MrSpud_dffX893@bld11734m5mk076mv.net wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:09:16 +0100
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:49:18 +0100, Indy Jess John
>><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> the crazy notion of a
>>>> supernatural entity that created the universe, transcends the laws of
>>>> physics but for some reason never breaks them
>>>
>>>Odd logic there.
>>>
>>>If the entity created the universe, then the laws that describe how the
>>>universe functions would have been created at the same time.
>>
>>It's a crazy notion because if you claim there is an entity that
>>created everything, the logic effectively contradicts itself. Nobody
>>could have created the rules of mathematics and geometry, or the
>
>Geometry isn't as constant as you seem to believe especially when curved
>space comes into the picture.

Curved space must have consistent rules too, complicated ones I'm
sure, but consistent within its own terms.

Defining things in flat space (as we do for pi for example) and then
curving it afterwards and declaring the definitions to be therefore
untrue is just cheating by moving the goalposts.

Rod.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 12:09:28 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 09:05:55 +0000 (UTC),
>MrSpud_3P@_14m0cwzcy8ja7lmbtb.biz wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:42:27 +0100
>>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Where did the fact that 2+2=4 come from? Where did the fact that
>>>seventeen is a prime number come from? Where did the value of pi or
>>>the square root of two come from? None of these things "came from"
>>>anywhere, they simply are what they are because they couldn't be
>>>anything else.
>>
>>How do you know? We might not be able to conceive of such a thing but it
>>doesn't make it impossible. There seems to be an assumption that mathematics
>>is somehow fundamental but I think Godel proved that might not be the case.
>
>Godel showed (I think) effectively that there exist some situations
>that cannot be completely described by mathematical notation, but
>there are plenty that can, and some that are so simple they hardly
>require any linguistic or notational description at all.

He showed mathematics was incomplete and therefor - IIUIC - not a true
description of the universe.

>Place two objects on a table. Even without thinking about words or
>numbers, you can see how many objects you have. Now get another two
>objects and place them with the first two, and again you can see how
>many objects are present. If placing the objects together like this
>resulted in one of them vanishing or an extra one appearing from
>nowhere with no explanation, you might be tempted to believe in magic
>because in reality this just doesn't happen. Putting two objects with

Yet quantum theory shows that boundaries are fuzzy so where do you draw
the line between things?

>another two results in a total of four objects, however you count them
>ofr describe the situation. There are some things, such as the above,
>that are true regardless of notation or language, and must be true,
>even in the abstract, anywhere in the universe.

Why must it? There may be some bizarre universe where individual objects
simply don't exist even at its equivalent of the atomic level, everything is
a continuum so this sort of mathematics wouldn't apply.

On 11/07/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <m8vjegdkga7scb8rrhh1dgfbjshjq61uk7@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> It's a crazy notion because if you claim there is an entity that created
>> everything, the logic effectively contradicts itself. Nobody could have
>> created the rules of mathematics and geometry, or the properties of
>> numbers, on which the behaviour of physical reality depends. If there
>> were a creator, it would have had to work within a universe in which it
>> did not get to make all the rules, so not really omnipotent after all.
>
> How about: "The Universe *IS* God!" then? :-)

Suggesting that Sun Worshippers are more intellectually respectable
than Christians and Muslims, perhaps?

On 12/07/2021 12:09, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> Godel showed (I think) effectively that there exist some situations
> that cannot be completely described by mathematical notation,

But Godel did not discuss the effect of one mathematical notation
being analysed through the use of another mathematical notation?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:59:28 +0000 (UTC),
MrSpud_3h12trf@dfxqcvd9ahk7.org wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:54:03 +0100
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:08:57 +0000 (UTC),
>>MrSpud_qx@kjq9s38yonfarhrnmfnd4.gov.uk wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:56:02 +0100
>>>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>The circumference of planet Zog on the other side of the universe
>>>>divided by its diameter will be the same value as any equivalent
>>>>measurement of any circle anywhere in existence, regardless of the
>>>
>>>C/D != pi for a circle drawn on a sphere the same as the angles of a triangle
>>>on a sphere do not add up to 180 degrees . Similarly it won't hold for a 3D
>>>sphere warped in the 4th dimension.
>>
>>If you are able to say that something is not equal to the value of pi,
>>then you must have a defnition for the value of pi. Inventing a
>>different situation where a different numerical value is achieved by
>>the customary computation is just moving the goalposts.
>
>Hardly inventing a situation - sea farers and map makers have had to take the
>curvature of the earth into account since they first realise it wasn't flat.
>
>>The usually accepted definition for the value of pi assumes a flat
>>surface, and wherever the value is calculated or measured in real
>>space or thoughtspace using that definition, it is the same.
>
>You think? Draw a circle on a ball and measure the circles radius along the
>balls surface then get back to me.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear. If you draw a circle on a ball in
order to measure the value of pi, you're not drawing it on a flat
surface. The value of pi is *defined* on a flat surface.

The ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a circle drawn
on a curved surface is not pi, but this does not make it valid to say
that "pi is not the same number on a curved surface" because that's
not how the number is defined. What you derive from that ratio on a
curved surface is not the value of pi.

Rod.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 12:16:10 +0100, gareth evans
<headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:

>But God created Man, and Man created mathematics,

Man may have created various notations for understanding mathematics,
but the mathematical properties of numbers and geometry could not have
been created by anybody or anything. The multiplication tables, the
distribution of primes, the numerical constants such as e, pi, the
Feigenbaum number, the golden ratio, the square root of two and all
the others, are what they must be, and couldn't be anything else.

Only one number, for example, becomes its own reciprocal if you
subtract one from it, and only one rectangle can form two more with
the same aspect ratio and no waste by dividing it across the middle,
there are only five Platonic solids, and so on, and so on. Even a god
could not change any of this.

Rod.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 12:25:33 +0100, gareth evans
<headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 12/07/2021 12:09, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Godel showed (I think) effectively that there exist some situations
>> that cannot be completely described by mathematical notation,
>
>But Godel did not discuss the effect of one mathematical notation
>being analysed through the use of another mathematical notation?
>

There are a great many situations where numbers are involved, but are
so simple that we don't need to invoke Godel or any kind of notation
to understand them.

The example I've already given involving prime numbers can be verified
without any mathematical knowledge at all, only the ability to tell if
one group of objects is the same as another, and it has been shown
that even starlings can manage this up to about seven objects. A
reasonably bright preschool child can to try to share out a number of
objects into equal shares with no leftovers, and discover that it
doesn't work for some numbers. It's got nothing to do with notation.

Rod.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 20:22:24 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>
>2+2=4 and 17 being a prime number are true because we have used Radix 10.
>2+2=10 if you use Radix 3. 17 isn't a prime number if you use Radix 8.

I don't know where you got that from. 2+2 => 11 in base 3.
It's still 'four' objects however you want to describe them
mathematically. 'Seventeen' objects are still prime whatever base you
use.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:46:54 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>>
>Not quite. The cannon ball has a greater mass than a feather. Therefore
>the Newton theory indicates that the mutual attraction of two bodies,
>and given that the earth is the constant on one side, the greater mass
>of the cannon ball should mean it reaches the ground a fraction sooner
>than the lower mass of a feather.

No it doesn't. Yes the force on the cannon ball is greater
than that on the feather but then the mass of the cannon ball is
greater than the feather. Since the force is equal to the mass x
acceleration what one finds is that the two accelerations are the same
therefore they must reach the ground together.

>When an experiment to demonstrate what
>actually happens in a vacuum did not show that theoretical difference in
>time, it reduced Newton's Law to the status of best guess.

There is no theoretical difference to show, Newton's laws were
upheld.

>Jim

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 12:28:50 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:59:28 +0000 (UTC),
>MrSpud_3h12trf@dfxqcvd9ahk7.org wrote:
>>You think? Draw a circle on a ball and measure the circles radius along the
>>balls surface then get back to me.
>
>Maybe I'm not making myself clear. If you draw a circle on a ball in
>order to measure the value of pi, you're not drawing it on a flat
>surface. The value of pi is *defined* on a flat surface.
>
>The ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a circle drawn
>on a curved surface is not pi, but this does not make it valid to say
>that "pi is not the same number on a curved surface" because that's
>not how the number is defined. What you derive from that ratio on a
>curved surface is not the value of pi.

My point is that 2d creatures on a sphere wouldn't realise that they were
on a higher level object unless the made the connection between the circles
they're drawing and the diameter varying depending on where they did it.
Similarly in our 3D universe on a large enough scale an apparently perfect
circle may not exhibit C/D = pi if space is curved so the definition of pi
is based partly on an unknown.

"williamwright" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:il0nitFitkoU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 10/07/2021 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> You missed out the bits about how various acitivites by priests has been
>> covered up. Ireland. Catholic Church, etc. Much of it quite recent, and
>> often covered up by others in the churches for years afterwards. Examples
>> and evidence continues to emerge from behind 'walls of silence'. The
>> CoE also has form in this area.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
> My recent book is partly concerned with the way pillars of the community
> have in the past been wilfully blind to child sexual abuse.
>
I hope it's not autobiogaphical, I've got a few years on you Bill, at the
time there was a lot
of it about, but us kids used to know who to avoid.

S

On 12/07/2021 14:20, Spud wrote:
> "williamwright" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
> news:il0nitFitkoU1@mid.individual.net...

>> My recent book is partly concerned with the way pillars of the
>> community have in the past been wilfully blind to child sexual abuse.
>>
> I hope it's not autobiogaphical, I've got a few years on you Bill, at
> the time there was a lot
> of it about, but us kids used to know who to avoid.

Assuming the experience wasn't actually unpleasant, or even pleasant,
who told you to avoid it?

What ages are we talking about?

--
Max Demian

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:20:28 +0100, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

>My recent book is partly concerned with the way pillars of the community
>have in the past been wilfully blind to child sexual abuse.
>
>https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0968MTDXR
>
>Bill

Downloaded it Bill and found it a good read, captured the
atmosphere of the times.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 08:59:13 +0000 (UTC),
MrSpud_dffX893@bld11734m5mk076mv.net wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:09:16 +0100
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:49:18 +0100, Indy Jess John
>><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> the crazy notion of a
>>>> supernatural entity that created the universe, transcends the laws of
>>>> physics but for some reason never breaks them
>>>
>>>Odd logic there.
>>>
>>>If the entity created the universe, then the laws that describe how the
>>>universe functions would have been created at the same time.
>>
>>It's a crazy notion because if you claim there is an entity that
>>created everything, the logic effectively contradicts itself. Nobody
>>could have created the rules of mathematics and geometry, or the
>
>Geometry isn't as constant as you seem to believe especially when curved
>space comes into the picture.

How about defining / stating whicj geometry you are rambling on about.

--
brightside ZX

On 12/07/2021 10:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 23:12:15 +0100, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2021 20:56, James Heaton wrote:
>>
>>>> My recent book is partly concerned with the way pillars of the
>>>> community have in the past been wilfully blind to child sexual abuse.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0968MTDXR
>>>
>>> I have bought a copy, arrived this week.
>>>
>>> James
>>
>> Excellent! Let me know what you make of it!
>>
>> Bill
>
> I bought a copy too. It arrived in about ten seconds.
>
> Rod.
>
Ohh! Let me know what the ebook is like (functionally I mean).

Bill

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 14:44:12 +0100
BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 08:59:13 +0000 (UTC),
>MrSpud_dffX893@bld11734m5mk076mv.net wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:09:16 +0100
>>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:49:18 +0100, Indy Jess John
>>><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> the crazy notion of a
>>>>> supernatural entity that created the universe, transcends the laws of
>>>>> physics but for some reason never breaks them
>>>>
>>>>Odd logic there.
>>>>
>>>>If the entity created the universe, then the laws that describe how the
>>>>universe functions would have been created at the same time.
>>>
>>>It's a crazy notion because if you claim there is an entity that
>>>created everything, the logic effectively contradicts itself. Nobody
>>>could have created the rules of mathematics and geometry, or the
>>
>>Geometry isn't as constant as you seem to believe especially when curved
>>space comes into the picture.
>
>
>How about defining / stating whicj geometry you are rambling on about.

And there was me thinking we were discussing reality. Do try and keep up.