beecee

When I was a much younger man and single, I had a mystical experience with twin blonde babes.

What do you mean by loaded? Something that is hard to answer, and/or may reveal some flaw in a "creationist argument? Let's get down to the nitty gritty...Science does not know everything, Surprise!!! But what it does know is that the available evidence points to the universe/space/time [as we know them] evolving from a hotter, denser state at t=10-43 seconds. A big crunch would mean a recollapse. That at this time is highly unlikely as we have evidence that the universe/space/time is accelerating in its expansion rate, not slowing down, as would be the case for any distant recollapse. Whether the universe/space/time [as we don't know them] or something [the quantum foam] has always been here is unknown at this time. Whether the universe/space/time is finite or infinite is unknown. With the question of something being evolved from nothing is interesting. Perhaps our definition of nothing needs reappraised? https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Many studies have been peer reviewed, many aspects of speculative science and cosmology have been written about and peer reviewed and even put on U-Tube!! But the scientists that have written these papers, the professionals that have reviewed them, all understand that these scenarios are speculative. We have papers on multiverses, parallel universes, wormholes, White Holes etc etc, but they are still all speculative at this time. Likewise science most certainly does not have any evidence for the existence of any deity of any fabricated manner. The universe is actually an awesome simple place: I sum it up this way...the BB: Phase transitions and fundamental particles: Cooling and atomic particles and light elements: Gravitational collapse and Stars: Nucleosynthesis and heavy elements: Planets and Abiogenisis: Evolution of Life: And there you have it! agreed totally. This whole aspect of drugs, hallucinations and mystical experiences, as being evident for some deity is bordering on the insane and extreme pseudoscience. Claiming this nonsense though is evident of some that have an agenda, a mission to "spread the word" so to speak, probably as an alternative and side track to the fact that science has made any semblance of any deity redundant and superfluous at least as far back as t=10-43 seconds, and extending all the time!

OK, so they [the dead sea scrolls] simply add to the mythical beliefs of ignorant ancient man, that soon a Savior would come? Evidence that such ideas existed in those days, is not evidence of anything more then speculation.

I couldn't agree more!!! Simply put, religion, god [or anything supernatural] is unscientific, and the scientific method has served us pretty well over the last couple of hundred years...not perfect, but the best there is. That is simply wrong. There is absolutely no evidence for any deity, or supernatural power, no matter how obtuse you try to fabricate it. Oh, and I see you are again onto this "mystical experience" as being evidence of something magical. It's simply not. You need to live with that.

Alex Grey? Who the hell is that? Oh yeah I see....https://www.alexgrey.com/ Sorry not what I call reputable and again I'm not into drugs as defined. You are confusing philosophical musings and philosophy with practical empirical science. Science in many and all disciplines have papers based on speculation, eg: multi verse and of course the excellent universe from nothing I gave you before. Real scientists accept that as yet, it is not evidenced based accepted mainstream science. You need to finally accept that.

Yes, it's everyone else's fault and everyone else's misunderstandings except of course your own obtuseness and refusal to answer directly. Let me be straight to the point....The evidence as you claim simply does not exist.It is nothing but philosophical musings and an apparent crusade by yourself in getting this nonsense, supposedly to the world. It won't because it isn't supported by empirical evidence. Your efforts in getting this published on a science forum, will in time just be lost in cyber space along with the myriad of other non scientific claims, made by other religious evangelists and cranks of one form or another. Science has not been done though. Speculative philosophical musings have simply been interpreted by some according to personal agendas. That's it in a nut shell.

It it understandable why some scientists of note [Hawking and Krauss come to mind] are now dissing philosophy in many instances, when examples of so called conclusions and interpretations are "fabricated" by some in their evangelistic efforts to garner support for the ever declining idea that any creator or supernatural being is or was ever needed. The totally ridiculous claim that any mystical experience supports such myth is paramount in that fabrication. This thread and the one previously closed with the false provocative title of "science has evidence for the existence of god" or words to that effect, reflect these rather emotional and stupid claims.

But you are afraid to answer them again? Or is this your version of a cop out? If it did it would be worth shattering news, but it isn't because your claims are false. No not at all, for the reasons just stated.. Again? OK, If it did it would be worth shattering news in every publication around the world in large black printed headlines. Simply imitating someone when faced with a difficult question is not very smart. so again, if you are able. please present without links or preaching, this evidence that shows your god of choice exists...other then in your mind that is.

Your links demonstrate nothing more then philosophical musings. If you are unable to answer then admit it. No it does not for the reasons I have stated. Good, then why not answer it again, for this poor old lay person? I've done that, I maintain it is you who simply denies that this is so. Then show me how I am in denial, because all I see is opinion, agendas, philosophical musings, and your continued attempts to evade the question. These professionals with agendas have offered no more then philosophical musings, unsupported claims, and wrong interpretations re mystical experiences of which we all have had. Good, then again explain the evidence supporting your statement re whatever version of god you are claiming, instead of referring me back to what I see as no more then simple rhetorical philosophical claims supporting your mythical beliefs...remembering that you have falsely claimed the following....."This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God"

Again, my question, please state the empirical, observational and/or experimental evidence, supporting your contentious statement/headline and thread, that "This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God" No preaching, no excuses about any loaded questions, no u tube video links, no agenda laden claims by interested parties, just the empirical evidence: the onus is on you to present that evidence. Good, then why not answer it again, for this poor old lay person? And yet this is the first time, I and it appears all on this forum have heard about this potential world shattering claim that you conveniently have interpreted from philosophical research. Now other then this hairy fairy mystical experiences, do you have any evidence supporting your god of choice? I suspect no as per every other unrealsitic claim made by believers in the supernatural/paranormal

You can maintain whatever you like. I maintain that you have an agenda, and are preaching, and blindly putting a wrong slant on some unsupported philosophical research that seems to support your agenda. Good, then answer my question and stop evading.

Ignoring the rest of your rhetorical preaching, the onus is on you to show me this evidence that supports some deity. If you are unable, then just admit that I was correct, and that all you have is philosophical musings. Again, mystical experiences are not evidence supporting some higher power or deity. Are you going to answer the question, or continue to evade? Yep, unscientific, unevidenced, excuses/myths to explain the universe around them. Science/cosmology of course has pulled the rug from underneath such nonsense and constructed models/theories, backed by evidence that supports a far more realistic scientific concept, and contrary to your final false claim, science continues to push back such mythical nonsense into oblivion and certainly not recognising.

Mystical experiences???? Oh, yeah I've also had similar...staring at the central disk of the Milky Way galaxy, observing the whispy outline of Andromeda and realising it is 2 million L/years away, and generaly the total awe and wonder of the universe that surrounds us...yes a mystical experience certainly. BUT JUST AS CERTAINLY NOT ANY EVIDENCE FOR ANY SUPERNATURAL CREATOR OR ANY SIMILAR NONSENSE. ZILCH, NADA, NIL....

As irrelevant as is the philosophical research you are supposedly directing people to. I havn't got an issue, other then your pointless rhetorical repeats of what you supposedly claim in lengthy posts...so much to say with so little substance. Anyway I'm rather tired of answering all your mythical nonsensical claims so we'll skip to your final paragraph..... The real reason why it is not headlines is simply because it is not as you claim...that is scientific evidence for some magical spaghetti monster. So now please tell this forum, and little old ignorant me, what is this empirical evidence that supports some being of supernatural qualities, or any interpretation that you seem to have. Please state this evidence/s and show how it is validated. ..show me some of this legitimate science and the empirical evidence supporting this concept...no links, no lengthy rhetorical excuses, what is this evidence. ps: I should also say that I have never yet taken any drugs [other then alcohol, coffee and tea] and that includes what we commonly call grass, or LSD which raised its ugly head when I was a young bloke and/or any other hallucinating crap.NEVER!!!

No welcome to the place where no matter what section you post in, and on what subject matter, you will be confronted with scrutiny of unscientific baseless claims. So far you have failed miserably to present any concrete evidence that validates any concept of any supernatural spaghetti monster in the sky. You are not in the pulpit of your church on a Sunday, preaching to the mindless converted flock.

No you have presented nothing but philosophical musings Sir, and more to the point, science most certainly has shown ancient religious beliefs and myths to explain the universe around them as total nonsense...The Egyptians saw god in the Sun...other civilisations saw him/her in rivers, mountains etc. The universe can be reasonably explained scientifically from t=10-43 seconds and work and research is continually being undertaken to further validate that picture. And of course the overwhelming evidence supporting that model [the BB] is now recognised by the Catholic church as is the theory of evolution. Is it? All I see is more philosophical musings. I once came upon a quote by someone saying that speaking broadly, "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know" What you have presented is nothing more then some speculative unsupported claims. Again many worthwhile speculative claims re the universe, what came before the BB and such are also presented, the difference being that those scientists specifically admit to such speculation. And of course most scientific theories and models were at one time simply speculation. And your philosophical musings and the philosophical musings from your article, are also no where near "validated" All you have referenced is philosophical musings Challenge all you like. I have dealt with many who under different guises attempt to invalidate some aspect of science, or alternatively, trying to validate the unscientific notion of some super magical spaghetti monster. It aint science, period! Some facts for you....You are referencing philosophical opinions and musings......There is not a sceric of any of the nonsense highlighted in your sensationalistic, provocative, nonsensical headline, "This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God" Again god or any supernatural, paranormal, event is unscientific, even though science certainly has done research into those areas, and come up essentially blanck. We have overwhelming evidence supporting the BB, we have evidence showing that the theory of evolution of life is as close to certain as one could wish, and the simple fact that we are here, supports Abiogenisis at least once somewhere in the universe. And I submit to you Sir, that if this was the case, it would be world wide headline news and people everywhere would be dropping to their knees. But the facts actually stand out like dog balls, in that all we have is another attempt by another newbie to try and justify the supernatural in whatever guise you chose by unsupported philsophical means and then pretentious objections when confronted.

I don't see myself as an atheist, rather an observer to the fact that science has delivered us from such ancient mythical beliefs, through the scientific methodology. The fact remains that science has pushed any need for any deity of any persuasion, into near oblivion. Still much to be done to explain all, but no reason or excuse for any short-circuiting or "god of the gaps" What you have presented is nothing more then some speculative unsupported claims. Again many worthwhile speculative claims re the universe, what came before the BB and such are also presented, the difference being that those scientists specifically admit to such speculation. And of course most scientific theories and models were at one time simply speculation. I admit to my amateur lay person status on this forum, as I have done many times, and certainly my ignorance exists in many areas. But I am able to sort the wheat from the chaff quite adequately and recognise pretentious carryings on. In the meantime here is some worthwhile speculative science....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ "A Universe from Nothing by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch. "In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero. The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy. What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself. Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account. Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable. If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The whole text from beginning to end rests on nothing more than mythical nonsense, unscientific at best, and a total lack of evidence at worst. One can say whatever he likes, whether it is fabricated nonsense or otherwise. While I have never gone into the actual total content of the dead sea scrolls, what I have read from reputable origins, is that it is simply a collection of the practices and beliefs of ancient Judaism. Nothing re some character called jesus or any associated supernatural powers. Perhaps one day a thousand years hence, someone will also uncover written collections re the practices and beliefs of today. OK, but my point stands. It has SFA to do with anything that even looks like validating any creation myth. Yet it claims that in the beginning this magical person created the universe in seven days...I smell some pedant!

I read your post that is in question, and I call shananigans, bullshit and rubbish, all tied into one....psychedelic renaissance my arse! And no, science as yet does not recognise any supposed magical spaghetti monster or deity of any kind.Such mythical supernatural, paranormal nonsense is unscientific at best, and total nonsense at worst. This is first and foremost a science forum, and as such any non scientific non mainstream claim needs to run the gauntlet so to speak, but I can tell you without a shadow of doubt, that if there was any truth in the article you presented, and the provocative headline you installed, then it would be big world shattering news that every priest charlatan, and theologian would be shouting from the rooftops, your pretentious objections to the actions of the mods not withstanding. There are many "speculative scientific" claims published in many reputable scientific journals, from multiverses to GR alternatives. They give us and scientists something to ponder over and either take up further research on the topic in question, or reject it. Most at best simply languish forever to be lost and forgotten.

Yep, of course. But again, where is all this re plasma leading [I have a horrible feeling!!! ]

The beginning of the bible purports to start the giant myth that God created this universe in 7 days...the rest of the nonsense stems from that, the core and foundation. That;s beside the point of the whole mythical situation that the bible would have us believe.

Not sure yet where this is leading but the central core of Earth is solid and is surrounded by a molten outer core. The heat at the core is thought to be caused by the left over heat from the accretion of the planet, and radioactive decay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core

From memory there does seem to be a size limitation for a terrestrial planet, before it will attract gases to form heavy, dense atmospheres and become actually gaseous giants. Jupiter is thought to have a rocky core. Then there is the scenario of adding more to gaseous planets and adding to their density but little to their size....This then can reach a stage where limited nuclear-ignition is initiated and we have a Brown Dwarf. I did find this...... https://www.universetoday.com/13757/how-big-do-planets-get/ "The largest known rocky planet is thought to be Gliese 436 c. This is probably a rocky world with about 5 Earth masses and 1.5 times our planet’s radius. Amazingly, this planet is thought to be within its star’s habitable zone".

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-radio-superfast-jet-material-neutron.html Radio observations confirm superfast jet of material from neutron star merger: September 5, 2018, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Precise measurement using a continent-wide collection of National Science Foundation (NSF) radio telescopes has revealed that a narrow jet of particles moving at nearly the speed of light broke out into interstellar space after a pair of neutron stars merged in a galaxy 130 million light-years from Earth. The merger, which occurred in August of 2017, sent gravitational waves rippling through space. It was the first event ever to be detected both by gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves, including gamma rays, X-rays, visible light, and radio waves. The aftermath of the merger, called GW170817, was observed by orbiting and ground-based telescopes around the world. Scientists watched as the characteristics of the received waves changed with time, and used the changes as clues to reveal the nature of the phenomena that followed the merger. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-radio-superfast-jet-material-neutron.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0486-3 Superluminal motion of a relativistic jet in the neutron-star merger GW170817 Abstract The binary neutron-star merger GW1708171 was accompanied by radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum and localized to the galaxy NGC 4993 at a distance of about 41 megaparsecs from Earth. The radio and X-ray afterglows of GW170817 exhibited delayed onset a gradual increase in the emission with time (proportional to t0.8) to a peak about 150 days after the merger event, followed by a relatively rapid decline. So far, various models have been proposed to explain the afterglow emission, including a choked-jet cocoon and a successful-jet cocoon (also called a structured jet). However, the observational data have remained inconclusive as to whether GW170817 launched a successful relativistic jet. Here we report radio observations using very long-baseline interferometry. We find that the compact radio source associated with GW170817 exhibits superluminal apparent motion between 75 days and 230 days after the merger event. This measurement breaks the degeneracy between the choked- and successful-jet cocoon models and indicates that, although the early-time radio emission was powered by a wide-angle outflow8 (a cocoon), the late-time emission was most probably dominated by an energetic and narrowly collimated jet (with an opening angle of less than five degrees) and observed from a viewing angle of about 20 degrees. The imaging of a collimated relativistic outflow emerging from GW170817 adds substantial weight to the evidence linking binary neutron-star mergers and short γ-ray bursts. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The aftermath of this Neutron Stars merger is now actually a BH. It is illustrated at the link as follows..... Aftermath of the merger of two neutron stars. Ejecta from an initial explosion formed a shell around the black hole formed from the merger. A jet of material propelled from a disk surrounding the black hole first interacted with the ejecta material to form a broad "cocoon." Later, the jet broke through to emerge into interstellar space, where its extremely fast motion became apparent. Credit: Sophia Dagnello, NRAO/AUI/NSF Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-radio-superfast-jet-material-neutron.html#jCp

Bingo! Just pipped me at the post!