Strange

There is no such thing as “time flowing” in relativity

That doesn't say "there is proof of god" (that would be crass) it says the evidence "is consistent with" (not proof of) perennial philosophy. Perennial philosophy is not god. You may say that god (or the divine) is defined in the context of perennial philosophy, but that doesn't define what "god" (or "the divine") IS, it just says what the context of the definition is. Why don't you give a short, one sentence definition of what YOU man by the word "god"?

That was one reason. Did you read the bit about "Our rules ..."? Did you even read the rules? Do you think they don't apply to you?

What is wrong with you. That has nothing to do with the rules. You seem to have a severe cognitive deficit and be unable to read what is put right in front of you.

Whether there is legitimate science or not is irrelevant. I don't think there is a rule against that (perhaps surprisingly).

Here, maybe you missed it (I know you didn't because you commented on it but ignored the bit about the rules)

Swansont said which rule you broke. OK. You are not obliged to "school" anyone, just show them the science. You have done that. Your work here is done. Bye. So why do you keep expressing it in that crass way?

There is a difference between repeating (which is what you do) and clarifying (which you don't do; you never did define what you meant by "god" choosing, instead, to repeat the same description fo perennial philosophy instead). And that is what YOU keep claiming. So what else are we to think?

I guess there are many types of engineering. Your description doesn't match anything in my working life!

I thought you said that would be a crass interpretation of the science? And this is moving the goalposts (another rhetorical fallacy; you will have the whole set soon). I quoted swansont to answer your comment that no one had told you what rule had been broken. He had. It takes more effort for 10 people to do that than for you to fix it once. I bet next time you repost your list of links (and you will) it is broken again. But you have nothing new to contribute to discussion. You simply repeat the same thing again and again. Sometimes just copying and pasting it. This is not a discussion, it is soapboxing (another rule violation).

You picked out the part of swansont's post that was not about the rules and ignored the bit that was about the rules. Sounds like cherry-picking to me. And this is typical of your arrogance. You are providing the link to help other people, so wouldn't it be in their and your interests for you to fix it. That way it gets fixed once so anyone can click on it, rather than making everyone else do this every time they need to use it. Definitely not. There are people here who regularly defend religion (even though they are not very religious themselves) and there are people here who are clearly fairly or very religious. They are not controlling (in the sense of limiting) your content. You have posted your ideas and your links (multiple times). They have never been deleted. You have nothing new to add so closing your threads does no harm.

You have ignored the bit about the rules violation. But this is not surprising given your cherry picking approach to the evidence. If you didn't keep copying and pasting exactly the the same links with no explanation of what they are, then maybe you wouldn't be considered to be in violation of the rules. You can't even be bothered to fix that second to last link so it works. This shows a certain level of disregard for your audience. Some people here do, that is true. I certainly don't. I don't really care about what people believe. I will criticise people for misuse of logic or science to support their views. But I will criticise atheists for doing that just as much as religious people.

It must be very frustrating when you just know you are right and people still, foolishly, insist on disagreeing with you.

Here are some simple calculations: http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/statcalc.htm

Really? See that bit: "Our rules state ..." ?

Isn't everything.

Thanks to whoever it was (Phi, I guess). Perhaps we could have "kept it real" by changing it to F-X or something more "street". Uhm... Bro. Or whatever.

Just came across these two articles on the relationship between mathematics and physics. Well, we obviously use mathematics to describe physics, but is the nature of physics actually defined or created by mathematical structures? (Beginning to sound like this should be in Philosophy ...) Anyway, an interesting read: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-strange-numbers-that-birthed-modern-algebra-20180906/ And if you follow the links in the "Related" section (near the bottom of each article) you will get sucked into a rabbit's hole of interesting articles. @neuerwind: You were talking about quaternions recently, so you might like this!

This is all very entertaining but ... could someone change the title to "Effect of ..." It makes my eyes bleed every time I see it!

I doubt it has much current capacity. I have been shocked by one: it was quite painful but did no harm because it could not generate enough current. There is a very high voltage but not much energy.

But that is your crass claim, repeated several times here. (Reminder: This is the first time science has recognized the existence of God) Yep. Not evidence for god though. Just evidence that people have the same mystical state of consciousness. In the same way that people have the same sorts of dream experiences. It doesn't mean the things that people dream about are real; it is just a reflection of the way the brain works. The "divine source" is the biochemistry of the brain. Perhaps because you were told not to bring the subject up again? Perhaps because you are lying about what the science says?

The other reason why this research (and, in fact, perennial philosophy) is not evidence for god is because if these experiences are universal, then they are shared by religions that do not have a god (e.g. Buddhism).

According to your logic, if it happens frequently, it must be true.

Bananas I'm wondering if this is someone testing a forum posting bot? The stupidity of the questions and inability to engage in a dialogue might suggest that.

There is nowhere in those two papers where they say this is evidence for the existence of god (as you yourself admit). So stop lying. As you say, claiming that this is evidence for god is "crass". So stop doing that.