Eise

As hiding the fact that the earth is really flat, it needs a massive conspiracy: astronomers with their pictures making satellites, correct predictions of events like moon- and sun eclipses), GPS, time zones, Foucault pendula, etc. It is impossible to uphold a believe in a flat earth, without also believing in a massive conspiracy. Chemtrails, which I also call a conspiracy theory, would need a much smaller conspiracy.

Take the Lisbon 1755 earthquake. It occurred on All Saint's Day, during many church services. It put the omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God in doubt for many people. How could God do (or allow) something like that? The easy answer of course is, there is no God, and the earthquake was just a a-moral, natural process. Nature is not a person, so you cannot morally blame it.

That is the shortest and clearest explanation i have ever seen!

Please show this with a Minkowski spacetime diagram. And that it is an experimentally proved fact doesn't matter to you? See the Hafele–Keating experiment, also mentioned above.

It has nothing to do with having a different point of view. It has to do with giving a well-argued point of view. This is a science discussion site. Only when people exchange good arguments, interesting discussions can arise. Science is about a reality that we share, so discussing about this reality, a consensus should theoretically be possible. Having said that, what happens here is more like (bad) philosophy. Philosophy is methodologically a bit more complicated case than science, because this shared reality is not a given. Philosophy's 'material' is how we actually think, and as it is clear that everybody thinks differently. Still, humans share a lot in how they think, and philosophy can help to flesh this thinking out, making it explicit. And then we can also see our differences better, and argue about them. So having not a shared reality, as in science, presses an even heavier load on formulating clear and argumentatively correct arguments. There is no final arbiter in philosophy. What you are doing is spawning ideas that pop up in your mind. See one of the lines in my disclaimer: "At its best, philosophy is intellectual reverse engineering, methodically dismantling bad habits of thought that sustain intellectual pandemics and replacing them with better thinking tools."

Who says these ants belong to the megalopolis? Did you lookup if the ants you saw are of the same kind who built the ant hill? Definitively not. You just spew thoughts that come up in your mind reading the postings here, and reading the Ant dialogue. Were this thread in the Philosophy section, I would be even harsher. Ah, it is not the first time: Not wasting my time here anymore on you.

I can imagine that, it just did not drop from your mind on your keyboard... Yep. It is a great analogy to neurons (ants) one one side, and the mind (ant state) at the other. And the book as a whole had a pretty 'intellectual' impact on me, many years ago. The dialogue can also be found in The mind's I by Hofstadter and Dennett. If these are your initial thoughts on the dialogue, then you have some funny triggers in your mind. I do not recognise in anyway that your thoughts have anything to do with the dialogue. I thought that too. To my relief, there lived no ants anymore. From the link of Joigus:

Yep. Under capitalism humans exploit other humans. Under communism, it is the other way round. (Not mine of course...)

"Yes, we have a soul. But it's made of lots of tiny robots." Dennett... I only had a quick glance into this thread: but I am missing the word 'evolution' here. Evolution of course needs some random processes. But it also needs selective pressure. And further I think Hofstadter's '... Ant Fugue' shows pretty precise what the intelligence of an ant state is. (pdf here). Just a snippet (It is a dialogue between Achilles, a tortoise, a crab and an Ant eater: the ant eater tells about his friendly relationship with an ant state (not with ants!)):

@Night FM: please answer my question. I agree, @dimreepr: give clear arguments, do not react with cryptic (and satirical) one-liners, or just let it be (speaking words of wisdom...)

<Ant fucking mode> nope, it is 'omniscient' </Ant fucking mode> I am wondering when @Night FM will answer my question.

What? Prove that with some better known examples. At least I know that e.g. Daniel Dennett was happily married. Added that for you. Extreme example is Jehovahs. They project the last day a few years in the future, and they do that for ages. Obviously they are not aware that Jesus predicted that the apocalypse would soon happen, possibly already in his own lifetime, but at least the younger ones under his followers. You mean biased by facts, by confirmed theories? And yes, in the beginning he refused to discuss creationists, because that would mean taking them seriously. But the more education was poisoned by creationists, the more radical Dawkins became. Yep, that happened, it is a black chapter in the history of the cultural impact of evolution theory. But it doesn't follow from evolution theory. In fact, it is an example of the so called naturalistic fallacy. As you can plainly see, in general (with awful exceptions) we do not kill 'lesser human life forms': we try to help and/or heal them.

I think, especially in the way that @Night FM formulates it, it is even worse: obviously only the most terrible threat, burn eternally in hell, works to keep religious people on the right moral path. Just contrast this with Zen-Buddhist ethics: there morality is a consequence of real insight in who we are. It leads to friendliness and compassion with other living beings. To say it very simple: we are all living in the same boat. @Night FM: would you, personally, misbehave, when heaven and hell would not exist? If not, why? If yes, then I consider you as a morally bad person, because you only behave morally under the biggest threat possible. Do you really need that, just to be kind to others?

Well, @Markus Hanke, it seems we have to wait for a cluster of quantum computers, each with 1 TB of QBits, before this is getting solved... Slowly I get to think that your idea about the problem of solving the n-body problem with GR might have a lot of truth in it.

Wow, so much misunderstanding. I made red, what you are missing completely. Not necessarily, here are my comments: gravitational lensing: is explained by GR Bullet cluster: that could be very well be DM. BTW, DM of the Bullet cluster is hypothesised on the basis of gravitational lensing. gravitational time dilation: is explained by GR gravitational waves: explained by GR It's no use to go on. Especially because I said several times that I think that DM is the best explanation, as said, with citations of my own postings, and you do not seem to even see that. Let's wait for for what astrophysicists will discover, OK?

Trying to find something is not the same as dogmatic stating that it exists. I would find it exciting if DM is found, and identified (axions? sterile neutrinos? WIMPS? something completely different?). And if Markus would be right, I could even say that the situation is similar to 'Vulcan or Neptune': the latter was the explanation of irregularities in the orbit of Uranus; the first explained the irregularities in the orbit of Mercury by the limited validity of Newtonian gravity. Yes, you created a crackpot theory (e.g. your 2018 thread). Just as an analogy: a few years ago it was 'discovered' that neutrinos could travel faster than light. And suddenly there appeared many articles (if I remember correctly about hundred articles on Arxiv) that tried to explain this phenomenon. In the end it was a bad connection of the timer. I never did. I only said that it is a possible explanation for rotation curves of galaxies, i.e. it is a hypothesis why rotation curves are what they are. But it does not explain what is derived from e.g. the CMB or the bullet cluster. Otherwise show me where I claimed MOND is the correct explanation for rotation curves. But I did! DM! So it is my favourite. But as I said already: And then there is @Markus Hanke's idea. Markus, are you aware of any physicists having similar ideas?

Who is 'some'? What are their arguments? I in any case I do not 'remember' it. Yep. As with Buddhist, Jewish and humanistic values, just to name a few. So clear projection from your side. Name these biographies. If you can't, this is just hot air. I already said this: it is metaphorical speech. Like 'The God particle', or 'Sneaking a Look at God's Cards' (a very good book for laypersons about quantum physics). Nope. Spinoza's concept of God is impersonal. I do not think so. He just gave Spinoza's concept of God as an example that is close to his. Nope: So no purpose in the universe. Sure. At least it works like that for me, even if my scientific stature is a bit lower than Einstein's. Wot??? Simple followers of an organised religion (or any other world view) I would not call 'spiritual'. See Exchemist's comment: Yep, as a metaphor. Just to note: both Einstein and Spinoza had deterministic world views. QM does not fit well into a deterministic world view. Yes, but also he abhorred fascism with its glorification of everything military. Several colleagues of him in Berlin succumbed to it, which must have been unbearable for him. And then there was also 'German physics' in which he was heavily attacked, because of his relativity theories.

No, they aren't. DM is a viable hypothesis, so they are completely correct to search for it. You are the one who takes it for granted because your pet theory about relativity is based on it. I think I will take your disappointment as a medal of honour.

Yep. Your continuous misunderstanding is tiresome. And the misunderstanding has its followup here: Where did I say scientists should stop? It is a critique on your position, that you already take DM for granted, and therefore close your mind for other explanations, or combinations of thereof. And this: Yep. Why? Because MOND is meant to explain galaxies' rotation curves, and possibly galaxy's movements in clusters. Just to say it again, I like a solution with DM as one solution for all, I wrote that already several times. DM in your ears would also explain why you after at least 2 repetitions of the same point, still do not get what I am saying: just don't fixate on DM as a solution for all phenomena that it should explain. Oops, missed this: Well, to be pedantic, I am right. Not in the idea that there are other (combinations of) solution(s), but simply the fact that the science is still open.

Gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation are not "established science" (more accurate, real facts/observations, because a new theory must be in agreement with the facts, all of them, not necessarily with the previous/existing theories)? You really think that MOND may ignore gravitational lensing and time dilation? Yep. And you still do not understand me. I think I have to yell: It is not established that dark matter is the common cause of all phenomena that we attribute to it. Did you hear me now? I find @Markus Hanke's Ansatz very interesting. However, I am not sure if it could explain e.g. the separation of DM from normal matter. And also, do not forget that such observations are heavily theory-loaded, so I also cannot totally exclude the idea that these observations are wrong. Maybe look up a few youtube videos of Sabine Hossenfelder about dark matter.

Like what @joigus cited? Calaprice, Alice (2000). The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 217. Einstein Archives 59-797. That is true. There are a lot of Christians who misuse Einstein's metaphorical use of the word 'God' to state that Einstein believed in a personal god. Joigus' citation should already make clear, that he did not. Really? Such as? Citations please! Why not call it a happy and fulfilled life? Please stop projecting your ideas on Einstein's life. Find historical sources for your ideas, as Joigus and I did, or just admit you are wrong. Did you even read Joigus' and my postings? Your reaction reads as if you did not read them at all. In the first place I already cited the letter you were referring to, and in the second place Joigus' citation shows that you are already wrong about Einstein believing in a personal god.

I don't think so. You are just too pre-occupied with DM to see what I mean. No, not necessarily. I agree that 'one solution for all' phenomena that hint at there being more mass than we can see is the most 'beautiful' solution. But that being said, science is always in for a surprise. As long as we have not observed DM directly, it still could be that there are different solutions for these different phenomena. Maybe MOND is the correct solution for the rotation curves, maybe we do not apply GR correctly on the universe as a whole, and so we interpret the CMB incorrectly, and the Bullet Cluster phenomenon has again another explanation. I don't know, and you neither. So it is a 'two-stage rocket': do all these phenomena have the same cause, namely DM? If so, what is DM? I am open to the idea that the answer of the first question is 'no'. You already take it for granted that the answer is 'yes', and therefore speculate (already) about what DM is. And looking back at this 2018 thread of yours, I assume that you are blind for my, in my opinion, methodologically correct approach, that even the first question is still not answered. Just be sure that when you speculate, you are correct about the established science. And I am not so sure if this meets that criterion:

How is MOND explaining gravitational time dilation? What did I say MOND is supposed to explain? To be sure, I also made the 'if' bold. Hope you now understand my sentence. I sense some aggressiveness in your questions and reactions, which make you blind for what people are really saying. If I remember my physics correctly, if the collisions are absolutely elastic, then yes. One particle may lose some kinetic energy to another one, but the other one gains it. Grrr... Partially cross posted with Mordred again... But yes, starting a posting, then eat an evening meal, and then continue the posting, might be not so a good idea.

On my Android tablet, I use the browser 'Via'. I've never seen a single advertisement there.

Only based on primary sources, not on some general speculations on 'no atheists in foxholes'. So here it is: Here the whole letter: So was Einstein religious? In a sense. The only thing in my opinion, is that the word 'spiritual' would better describe Einstein's position. At least most religions have some kind of 'divine metaphysics', to none of which Einstein subscribes. 'Spirituality' is not dependent on any kind of metaphysics. It is about finding a way to live as an individual in a much wider cosmos, be it divine or 'godless'. I wonder why you didn't lookup it yourself. Aren't you interested in improving the quality of the debate? Based on what? You are speculating again. Einstein, as a foreigner with German background, and known pacifist, had no access to any secret projects of the military. The movie is not totally historically adequate. It is good, however. But do not use the movie as historical reference. Speculating again. Sorry, your thread is totally ideological, and has nothing to do with the facts we know about Einstein. I think it should be moved to 'Speculations', because there you have to base your ideas on empirical facts.