Pymander

I'm tempted to say that's word salad, but its only an hors d'oeuvre. Maybe you can tell me why the big bang didn't go off an hour later, so that we're not here yet. Or maybe, why, when the expanding BigBangium reach the density Gm/rc^2, it didn't behave as a black hole, and just disappear again. And if that isn't enough, what directs force to behave according to mathematical law, so as to prevent degeneration into kaos. Yet this is a panacaea for "God is not necessary to explain existence, take your bibble and shove off!" And what, then, stops that last sentence from answering your question about the bold type, or did my eyes deceive me once or twice, when I threw bits around? I ask, I heard, you don't want to know. I'm fine with that. Aetheism is a religion. That's what the Saducees were, no angel, no spirit. The symbolic name used in scripture is "the dead", as in "Let the dead bury the dead". To the ancient Egyptian, it was called the filth. There was more, the heart, the soul, the spirit, the power, the shadow, the name, and the persona. Some bits part of the conscious physical life, some eternal, some evolving, and the eventual perfection made one an immortal god, joining the body with the rest, and passing through the dimensions, with the ability to materialise at will. The Hindu is a close survival with evolved symbolism (eg. the chacras, meaning lotus in sanskrit, and corresponding to the endocrines (pineal, pituitary, thyroid, thymus, etc), the seven levels of consciousness of which the senses are the lowest. The 'churches' of the Revelations were thus explained, by Edgar Cayce. From this the rest of the symbolism of the Revelation develops, utilising anecdotes from throughout. I believe that the Tarot Trumps symbolically represent each chapter in sequence as divided today. Okay?

Apologies. Thanks for your tolerance. Issues are complicated and involved, and elements of psychology hard to fathom. For me, the experience has been enlightening. In return, I hope to have opened some doors that don't just go nowhere, for those interested in alternative ideas.

My position here is well supported already. The aims of Jefferson, clearly outlined in his statute, are that peoples beliefs should be protected. I have read the upanishads, the bhagavad gita and heaps none of you will have heard of (Oppenheimer would have, he knew sanskrit). They say the same thing as far as dharma is concerned. They obviously diverge on history. Confidence in such is undermined by the virtual official denial of science, by hiding behind a much popularised but inconsistent theory. The familiar and constitutional Christianity alone exacts the violent reactions as the thread claims. Big Bang is less justified than what I have presented on the grounds of solid science and logic. Even so, time is incomplete, just brushed under the carpet. I guess our fate is sealed.

Has it occurred to you that, while science masquerades as shining sanity, it actually suffers from multiple personality disorder. I've said enough already to support that conclusion.

As far as I understand what you present here, I have violated none of these rules. If so, kindly be more specific than to imply unsupported accusations. I can not, and even if I could, will not pander to a hidden curriculum. This IS the hypocricy of which Thomas Jefferson was speaking. Read it more carefully, perhaps.

Didn't know AI was that advanced. That's Robocop scary. I am very comfortable in speculations, and make no stronger claim for my conjectures. But a lot of science belongs there too. Don't worry, I understand about confusing the neophytes. This was censureship: Yeah, October 1962, my mistake. Castro had great respect for Kennedy ("My Life" 2008). We can only conjecture why the assassination. Better not. The answer given Swansont applies here. The answer given Swansont applies. The answer given Swansont applies. The answer supplied to Swansont applies here also, but since you raised the point of willing ignorance, and asuming that you have considered that answer first, let me quote some KJV which combines this question of willing ignorance, with the end of the world scenerio: 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 PETER (lines 37031 to 37037 of 'C:\ECR\The Bible and Apocrypha (KJV).txt') How was it clear 2012 years ago that our end should be so? And what effect does an official denial of our founding religion have on the population? This began in the nineteen hundreds in psychology. The result. Our means are increasing exponentially. Our aims are utterly confused.

Woodrow Wilson ended WWI with a Fourteen Point Plan, mainly about conflict caused by coloniallism. He consulted Edgar Cayce to compile this document and presented it to the Central Powers. He is quoted as saying "Anyone who reads the Bible will know that it is God's word." When asked about Cayce, he said "No man is that good a liar. The causes of war, and the next is our end, are clearly exploitation. The Fourteen Point Plan was soon, like so much else, forsworn as 'too idealistic'. In twenty years WWII happened. Fidel Castro and President Kennedy (inheriting a CIA plan) put the world on the brink for three weeks, in 1966. Disarmament began. We are lasting, getting complacent, throwing away the CAUSE of civilisation = religion, blithly serving who? We as scientists must be careful not to dismiss, nor accept hypotheses with greater care.

The Judeo-Christian scripture was being disallowed. It is worldwide (KJV) and that took strange fate with Elisabeth I -> James (+ Machiavelli), with English, due to John Dee and the navy he recommended, as prophecised, after the Vatican (ignoring detail) assumed power after Rome collapsed. "The Gospel shall be preached to all nations before the end..." One hell of a coincidence. This is the speculation forum, and this must raise speculation concerning such coincidence. Science cannot reproduce a miracle. Miracles don't happen. This is 'science', not science. Read the right book on Rasputin. That's recent. Can you be so affronted mercifully? Christ was not permitted with unbelievers, echoed in the Jefferson doco. That is using force! Don't be too sure of such things. Jefferson had unusual insights likewise from a long tradition.

Anti-Judeo-Christian Censorship MoonTanMan and myself have been instructed to begin our discussion to our own thread, and as you know I do, I always comply to the best of my understanding. In 1977, Thomas Jefferson drafted this Statute for Religious Freedom, and it was made into state law in Virginia in 1786. Edgar Cayce's own readings directed him from Selma, Alabama to Virginia , where his readings survive to this day with the Association of Research and Enlightenment. Singling out discussion of Judeo-Christian scripture as inappropriate on Science Forums seems quite contrary to this celebrated document, and even illegal in Virginia. I would like some opinions and discussion of the appropriateness of bringing such material to light in the speculations forum, particularly on the subject of 'The End of The World'. Using the term 'spam' against such, to legitimate censorship, seems propaganda worthy of Adolf Hitler, and is certainly not in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson's law. Further, discussion concerning the creation of the universe, and the exclusion of alternatives to BigBangium, smacks of Mao Zedong at his best. Does a forum need a Little Red Book, and to be able to quote nothing else. The text of the Thomas Jefferson's law follows: "AN ACT FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern,and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions anymore than our opinions in physics or geometry, That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them: Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

Goodbye.

Considering that mayan, kuran & hindu thoughts are represented in this thread, I couldn't help feeling that the religion upon which the Constitution of the U.S.A and U.K. was based needs some representation. However, finding the relevant references requires some knowledge of its scripture, and decided to help. I hope this is okay. DEUTERONOMY 32:21 - 32:22 PSALMS 46:4 - 46:6, 82:6 - 82:8 ISAIAH 65:17 - 65:21 DANIEL 11:36 - 11:39, 12:1 - 12:2, 12:11 - 12:13 NAHUM 2:3 - 2:4 ZEPHANIAH 1:3, 3:1 - 3:20 MATTHEW 24:15, 24:21 - 24:31 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 17:30 - 17:32 2 PETER 3:1 - 3:18 REVELATION 11:15 - 11:19 Money's no use on the other side, and I hope like hell they don't use it wherever we incarnate next.

My opening statement for the Truth and Knowledge article was:

Pushed for time at the moment, but many of your points are reasonable and should be answered. They will require some work and unless fate intervenes, I will return to them.

Thanks. Just checked on this for changes. Promethium (#61) is a rare earth element (which are assumed to serve no biological function. But I have witnessed certain artesian waters cure arthritis simply by bathing (Muckadilla, Queensland is famous)) and wonder if some of these must be trace elements required from a once more varied herb diet, the more so with age. Technetium (#43), below Manganese in the table, does occur as a rare spontaneous fission product of Uranium (discovered since my research), but both these have found uses and are synthesised like Plutonium, for better reasons. Their isotopes are all unstable with half lives which do not compare with the age of the earth like #92 Uranium 238. They were conspicuous holes in the Periodic table. Primordial Technetium is a theoretical but unproven possibility. I guess 'Primordial' would have saved confusion. These alone are followed in the table by elements with stable (non-radioactive) isotopes. The detection of Technetium in Giant Red Stars raises questions about their processes. See Wiki for some interesting stuff.

This attracted much flack. To be clearer, I have tried to be more specific as to what is meant, with: No doubt, any such generality will have exceptions. My experience has not been as positive as yours. My credentials reached no higher than those you may find in SwissImmaculate, and this work is a result of mundane employment providing time few with my knowledge will find to think. I have decided to present my unshackled 'theories' for consideration by others more qualified. DH seems to share a broad spectrum of interests, and has been notably polite and made corrections (one is historical sequence Hubble – Einstein. Memory fades, but Einstein's postulate is given as he termed it, thus my incorrect inference here). This I took as agreement,among generalities. Still, for all my foolishness, it may be worthwhile toensure that prejudices (by any other name) do not falsify a real possibility. And at the risk of pontificating, an intelligent universal source, if nothing else, ought not to be rendered 'officially denied', with the decision left to the individual. This requires humility by religions and states as to past errors. Such a world as allows this, with learned and considerate people, we certainly do not have (yet), and we get the government we deserve (Psalm 82, KJV). I have provided other citations for this stance, but these are flatly despised. Pity! I meant naturally occurring, and not so unstable that they have disappeared, thus to uranium and breakdown products, with four below number 92 with no long lived isotopes, Francium, Astatine, and two transition elements. 80 totally stable? Interesting.

“Main stream science' isrequired to be accepted without question at an academic institution.” This attracted much flack. Tobe clearer, I have tried to be more specific, with: “If one studies main streamscience at an academic institution, he will not receive credit by submittingassignments and answering examination questions from the point of view of analternative paradigm that was not being taught.” No doubt, any such generalitywill have exceptions. My experience has not been as positive as yours. Mycredentials reached no higher than those you may find in SwissImmaculate, andthis work is a result of mundane employment providing time few with myknowledge will find to think. I have decided to present for consideration myunshackled ‘theories’ for consideration by others more qualified. DH has beennotably polite and made corrections (historical sequence Hubble – Einstein isnotable, memory fades, but Einstein’s postulate is given as he termed it, thusmy incorrect inference here), and seems to share a broad spectrum of interests. “In most cases, however, andrightly so, when studying at a university one is meant to be learningthe basics. Until one has these thoroughly grasped then it is arrogant andfrigging infantile to go wandering off and waffling about alternativeparadigms.” This I took as agreement,among generalities. Still, for all my foolishness, it may be worthwhile toensure that prejudices (by any other name) do not falsify a real possibility. And at the risk ofpontificating, an intelligent universal source, if nothing else, ought not tobe rendered ‘officially denied’, and the decision left to the individual. Thisrequires humility by religions and states as to past errors. Such a world, withlearned and considerate people, we certainly do not have (yet), and we get thegovernment we deserve (Psalm 82, KJV). I have provided citations for thisstance, but these are flatly despised. Pity!

Since you won’t let it rest, you force me to continue. But I won’t emulate the “show business for ugly people” called politics, which is only designed to obscure and defame, nor will I put words in the mouths of contenders as you just have. Much evidence has accumulated since the rival “Big Bang” and “Steady State” theories had an equal footing. The “Big Bang” seemed to answer the question of t=0 and ignore t<0 which the “Steady State” plainly did not. This suits the purpose of those who prefer ultimate oblivion to a life of decency, and replaced ethics with “might is right”. “The Sorry Tale” by Patience Worth is available today, and provides a staggering picture of a previous time, when Julius Caesar’s Rome had become such an empire. The novel is also without ‘scientific’ explanation. The Edgar Cayce readings are likewise, and definitely not ‘creationist’ but very ‘Christian’. Elements necessary for an attempt to explain the “Steady State” are now available, by reinterpreting the nature of the neutrino, dark matter, and dark energy. These elements have been more or less added to the “Big Bang” to cover anomalies in a rather ad hoc manner. Strangely, they support the rival theory rather well, properly interpreted. For those interested in examining this assertion, the following, which I am told does not belong in ‘main stream science’ but here in ‘speculation’, will be given. Its claims are yet neither proven nor disproven, but they are contestable. Proper scientific contesting of these assertions is being requested, not “mooeypoo”, “horse feathers” or other such mindless garbage. The basis is as follows: Matter and antimatter (dark matter) particles are always formed in pairs which will annihilate each other. I believe they must be rematerialized when photons and antiphotons collide with enough energy. They would contain excess energy as K.E. and most likely are the source of cosmic rays. But only in intergalactic space will they not immediately annihilate as much material as is created. This requires a mechanism for their separation. This would be supplied if (light) matter attracts (light) matter, dark matter attracts dark matter, and light and dark matter repel. The symmetry is incomplete unless dark matter is to dark energy as light matter is to light energy. In this respect, I think that the neutrino qualifies as the dark energy photon, or antiphoton. Neutrinos may have no other effect on matter (and vice versa) than gravitational repulsion. The recycling is in spiral galactic cores, so called black holes, where the event horizon is actually converting light matter and light energy to dark energy. This will be repelled out of the galactic core, pass through all the material in the galaxy, and head into intergalactic space. The symmetry is complete, and mass is signed relative to the energy or the observer in question. Possibly, photons and antiphotons (neutrinos) are also produced in pairs. In circumstances where an energy discrepancy has been noted, the neutrino has been hypothesized. Its true nature may be as described here.

Which is precisely what I was saying, so now you agree, and the rest of my post is okay again. Thanks. But I didn't start this thread to practice debating skills, just to lay some basic foundations in the logic of science, before presenting alternatives to current paradigms for discussion. As for pontificating, well, I guess the Masons have the Big G and don't discuss it for a reason. The competing paradigm is BigBangium. Seeing this arouses such fanatisism against the rival Steady State Theory => Big G again, I'll let it rest.

If one studies main stream science at an academic institution, he will not receive credit by submitting assignments and answering examination questions from the point of view of an alternative paradigm that was not being taught. This paraphrases the statement you claim renders all else irrelevant. How?

A great deal is fairly certain, 88 stable elements max atomic number 92, organic and inorganic chemistry derived therefrom, special and general relativity, thermodynamics, etc all of this is employed with confidence. Great technological advances pervade all of industry. On the other hand, the origin of the universe, the divisions of the mind and its sources, the very mysterious questions concerning time itself or the complete avoidance of t=-infinity which makes no scientific sense, the subatomic world, and even the reasons why one force, the electric field, obeys mathematical law to bring all of manifestation into a comprehensible state, the nature of consciousness, and questions of purpose behind the manifested universe are all way beyond any kind of certainty. I will be frank, the crux of such questions resolve between two alternative realities. The source of the universe in all its glory is either conscious and with purpose and directing all things, or it is not. We know atheists rest heavily on unintelligent BigBangium. This appears to answer for The Most High Intelligent Power in Creation (avoiding a name). Which hypthesis seems more likely is essentially in question. The decision should be more explicitly individual, but based on all of science, as far as one is able to master it. Why? Because many questions requiring answers rest on this decision, especially for psychology, and even for humanity itself. This is not just my opinion. Science, art and religion are branches of the same tree - Albert Einstein. Why him again? I think he showed us that we are from the light, and that it is very different from the material world, an ancient belief.

I stand corrected. Answering you initial response, do you get the impression that I have no idea of main stream science? "Again, false. It has every right to say that it is more than an "equally viable alternative"; it can certainly say that it is closer to the data than a theory which predicts different data." Can you not see that this is a contradiction? "But different speculations are not necessarily equal. That is why direct evidence allows us to evaluate which theories are closer to experimental outcome and which further away." And who decides what is 'direct evidence'? What is more direct, for instance, than the "Black Hole" contradicting the existence of "BigBangium". "Err. What? No, they don't." You will need to be more specific. "Strawman. What is suggested is that the theory has sufficient evidence that a mountain of evidence will be needed to persuade us that another theory is superior." Original. Alternative does not imply superior/inferior. Are you, maybe, suggesting that, while every paradigm was swamped by greater evidence before the current one, that this cannot recur in the present. "As is already done." We have with all certainty chosen well this time? So that's scientific? Thank you. Have you written any books? I'd like to pursue your thinking in greater depth.

Good one. You're Bart Simpson, right?