Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein

The tiniest grains are the greatest sources of energy generated against repulsive forces.

See: "Is the Universe Expanding?" The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

ah, but how about the shape of the grains? larger grains still could polarise light in a way similar to smaller grains if their fields are shaped like lenses of metamaterial with a virtual negative indez etc. Sting theorists tend to have an unlimited supply of duct tape to patch holes in their theory, so i a confident one of them will write some computersimulation to come up with grain/braneshapes that will make it fit again, (and maybe there is even a change they are right, but how do we check ??? ) nevertheless, this result is very encouraging for beyond einstein physics and very cleverly deduced.

Very interesting, but what if this 'graininess' doesn't exist? Could it simply mean our understanding of quantum effects are just highly limited? Which I think I've heard many scientists say without hesitation. Can space not be infinitely indivisible without a plank scale or am I getting this wrong?

ah, but how about the shape of the grains? larger grains still could polarise light in a way similar to smaller grains if their fields are shaped like lenses of metamaterial with a virtual negative indez etc.

Sounds like special pleading.
Adding more epicycles (shape, refractive index etc) to create a polarisation thats not observed seem backwards?

@MGD: You hit the nail right on the thumb. If any grain is constrained to beneath the Planck scale, then for all practical purposes it does not exist.

you edited your post :(

Sting theorists tend to have an unlimited supply of duct tape to patch holes in their theory, so i a confident one of them will write some computersimulation to come up with grain/braneshapes that will make it fit again,

So we have a idea that can't be disproved, so it no longer a theory.

High quality science and guarantees a long career

What if the gains are not at rest but moving (with the expansion of the universe?), At C or a significant fraction their of, Lorentz contraction would?

MD, don't go against the grains!;)

Another theory that this observation appears to question is the holographic universe: that the cosmos is really 2D holographicly projected into 3D resulting in courser (and theoretically observable) "grains".

More likely some bright spark will add a term to Dark matter, Dark energy, Quintessence, ________ (<insert favourite vague theory here, like my idea of serendipitous-matter®) and say it randomizes the polarisation over cosmic scales :(

I can see your point MachinegunDojo, since the universe is constantly expanding and stretching, shouldn't we be able to see some effect of the "graininess" after almost 14 billion years of expansion, there should be spots detectable. But even today space is still smooth, which brings questions about the existance of any graininess. It sounds like another dark matter, a theory that is created to make the data fit.

If quantum grains are smaller than the planck scale, then it implies the possibility that either the quantum grain, or the idea that the smallest unit of space is the planck scale would be incorrect. Seeing as the evidence currently points towards einstein's ideas and not in favor of quantum ideas, I take this as evidence that einstein was smarter than he was given credit for, and that quantum mechanics is overthought in some areas.

I can see your point MachinegunDojo, since the universe is constantly expanding and stretching, shouldn't we be able to see some effect of the "graininess" after almost 14 billion years of expansion, there should be spots detectable. But even today space is still smooth, which brings questions about the existance of any graininess. It sounds like another dark matter, a theory that is created to make the data fit.

I absolutely disagree with you tangent. That was a cheap shot, and you didn't think it out. For one, the data would actually have to fit in the first place for your argument to be valid.

The quantum graininess theory is an extrapolation on current theories.

Unlike dark matter theory - This theory was created before all the data came in. now that the data is here, they have to go back and figure it out.

Very interesting, but what if this 'graininess' doesn't exist? Could it simply mean our understanding of quantum effects are just highly limited? Which I think I've heard many scientists say without hesitation. Can space not be infinitely indivisible without a plank scale or am I getting this wrong?

I cannot say if you are getting it wrong, but I agree that the graininess might not exist. With improving technology, it might be found in some future time; however, this experiment definitely shows that graininess is beyond our present ability to detect with the most advanced technology currently available.

Perhaps quantum mechanics is a tool that can be applied to many different physical systems, but that does not necessarily mean that it applies to all physical systems. Maybe it is the wrong tool for this "job," and relativity is the right tool. Maybe there is no grand-unified theory, and we will just have to accept that both theories have appropriate applications.

like QEntanglement..

It sounds like another dark matter, a theory that is created to make the data fit.

That's how it's done... dream up a theory to fit the known data... reduce it to it's simplest form... then apply the Scientific Method. People who only have a passing acquaintance with the Scientific Method tend to confuse discovery and justification. It's only in the justification context where we have to apply the rules and weed out the incorrect ideas.

Wouldn't the grains be randomly oriented and gamma ray interactions with multiple grains would have the effect of cancelling out any changes to polarization over time? So, for every grain oriented to induce a 'positive' polarization in a given direction, there is an equal probability of encountering a grain oriented to induce an equal but opposite 'negative' polarization.

"However, Integrals observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller."

Amazing with such accuracy !

Amazing with such accuracy !

I'm guessing not necessarily high precision measurements, calculation simply based on frequency of gammas.

Wouldn't the grains be randomly oriented and gamma ray interactions with multiple grains would have the effect of cancelling out any changes to polarization over time?

@muddy,
Good point. But even if the grains were randomly oriented their presence would still have some repeatable impact that can be picked up with the right experiment and precision of sensors.

This is analogous to carrying out repeated calculations on a computer with extremely high precision math. Even with millions of bits of precision (instead of the 64-bits commonly used today) and even if rounding of the lowest bit is done randomly (instead of always rounding up or down), algorithms can be run that quickly magnify the rounding error to large numbers.

The biggest difference between these cases is we can run any algorithm we want on a computer so it is easy to detect its precision (i.e. its grain). But with the universe we have to make do with creative experiments on phenomena provided by serendipity.

nm: great comment.

In my mind this could be interpreted as a constraint on the effects of graininess just as easily as a constraint on the size of the grains.

Postulated:
>> DM only affects baryonic matter through gravity.
likewise:
>> Graininess doesn't polarize light.

Why isn't it that simple? Just toss out the <.01% of string solutions where it does polarize the light.

If space is continuous, maybe a choice of cardinality can be use to describe 'grainiess'(different 'densities'). That way any wavelength of light affected or unaffected might be explained.

The infinite has no place in physics yet. So feel free to ridicule and deride the flight into fantasy above. lol

You and your "cardinality". What do red wanna be woodpeckers have to do with anything? Seriously.

Arbitrary choices of 'density' aren't acceptable. A unified theory should be parameter-less. That is the problem with MOND for galactic arms.

If we don't see the polarization of wavelengths as predicted by a theory, toss the theory and revise it. Don't introduce a configurable variable to fit results. Blech!

Derisive enough for you? ;)

I can see your point MachinegunDojo, since the universe is constantly expanding and stretching, shouldn't we be able to see some effect of the "graininess" after almost 14 billion years of expansion, there should be spots detectable.

How could anyone tell? The sensors, the observers (us) and the template universe are all expanding - there is no available external and unchanging reference to compare to.

lol
http://www.physor...big.html

"Colleagues in theoretical physics have got lots of great ideas and have written hundreds of papers, but physics is an observational science." - William Trischuk

Reality check.
Yep. Plenty derisive enough. Ah, thks?

This conclusion apparently plays well with dense aether theory, in which Universe is random, similar to clouds and/or fractal Perlin noise without apparent level of nesting - but I'm not very sure about reliability of this deduction. In particular, I don't see any reason, why the gamma rays should get polarized during their travel at cosmological distance in some particular direction, differently polarized for various wavelengths the less. I'm sure, such conclusion may be (and it will be) attacked with many proponents of classical theories easily.

Anyway, just the observation of gamma rays (the highest energy density observable) at the cosmological distances (the largest distance scale observable) can bring many important insights violating existing theories of observable Universe - I'm just not sure, whether just the (absence of) polarization of gamma rays could serve for such purposes.

any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller

The absence of the graininess of the space-time at the Planck scale would serve as an phenomenological argument AGAINST (existence of) Higgs boson too, which - as everyone knows - wasn't observed yet despite the expectations of most theorists.

The entire chain of reasoning is predicated on the presumed distance of the GRB, which is not established soundly.

BTW Before some time the similar observation of gamma ray burst effectively disproved the LQG theory, because of the absence of speed difference between long and short ends of wavelength spectrum.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1832

I presume, the mechanism of this signal cancellation will be the same at both cases: the photons inside of burst aren't propagating along straight path, but they revolve mutually like the massive bodies and they're kept together with their gravity. The same behavior would wipe out the occasional polarization effects.

The grains should twist the light rays, changing the direction in which they oscillate, a property called polarisation.

The problem with such assumption arises, when you put the question: "OK, they will be twisted.. But in which direction?". IMO if these fluctuations would exist, then their polarization effects would compensate exactly at the cosmic distance. I'd expect, they will blur the occasional polarization instead.

This is pretty cool. It makes me wonder if gravity/spacetime can ever be quantized/renormalized in a "theory of everything." Perhaps we have to accept that quantum theory is a theory of things/energy, and GR is a theory of space/nothing - and never will the two mix (except as they affect one another).

How did they calculate the effect on light? - hope they used a quantum treatment and allowed for the fact that the light takes all possible routes through the universe - I would have thought that that might erase any effects of graininess.

The following link is to what I believe is the arxiv version of the paper to which this article refers: http://arxiv.org/...68v1.pdf . It seems to indicate that supersymmetry would make the bound much much weaker (so much so as to be nearly useless). One of the papers to which the above one refers (ref. 24) indicates that these bounds do not apply to most versions of string theory (since these retain Lorentz symmetry and the polarization rotation to which this article refers would indicate a violation of said symmetry).

I think the universe on both large and small scales is much simpler that some scientists think. There is some hidden mechanism that has not been discovered yet that "powers" and interacts with our reality. I feel sure it's all based on quantum physics with our universe/reality laid on top of this somehow. This quantum substrate beneath our reality might be the power source. Elementary particles - quarks, gluons, etc etc. - could be "pinhole energy leaks" (emanating from strings at their core?) from this quantum substrate/foam and that might be their energy source. As for empty space and the desire to have a granular structure to explain away the emptiness, I guess certain theories take a life of their own and, like anything else that might be misleading, the alleys are long and dark, eventually resulting in a dead-end. Does this granularity NEED to exist for virtual particles to exist? Or is the concept of pure emptiness mathematically difficult to prove? Just a layman's 2 cents.

This all reminds me of polywater. Which dimensions were observed?

These two preprints are relevant for subject http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4438 http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1068

String theory argues that an evaporating black hole explodes into a shower of particles when it gets to the size of the Planck length. However, there is no good reason for this assumption. I think that a black hole will continue to evaporate until it's total energy is just less than the mass of an electron-positron pair at which time the event horizon is about 10-57 meters, consistent with the finding that the graininess is less than 10-48 meters.

I have a question. If talking about polarization is there a difference between seeing this event on the axis and from the vantage of the pole? I know it sounds terribly simplistic, but shouldn't a sample from the pole exaggerate the change the most?

In smooth/homogeneous spacetime is not place for motions i.e. for energy because such spacetime tightly fills whole truly empty infinite volume. Such spacetime even cannot be torn. It means that spacetime must be granulated. On the other hand there is the correct Noether theorem, based on smooth/homogeneous spacetime for particles moving with the speed c or lower, which ties symmetries of homogeneous spacetime with the known conservation laws.

So how do we reconcile?

There is only one correct solution the granulated spacetime must be composed of superluminal granules i.e. tachyons. Only then are possible motions and such spacetime looks as smooth/homogeneous spacetime for particles moving with speeds equal to the c or lower (but not for the tachyons). It is because my tachyons (physical properties of them I derived from known experimental data and observational facts) appear in each point of truly empty infinite volume. They have practically infinite velocity of 10^64km/sec.

A few of the comments above are kinda treating the graininess as if they are talking about particles, such as suggesting that they have a 'shape'. This graininess doesn't quite fit the concept of shape. It might help if you think of this gaininess as similar to gaininess of time, and dismiss the idea that it has a shape. The idea that the expansion of the universe would lead to us being able to see these grains is similarly flawed logic. Just as if you try to imagine 'seeing' a unit of time, you will similarly, never 'see' a unit of space.

To LKD:

No, the ligt from the GRB is still moving the same direction, no matter which way you are facing, and if you do not have the detector facing the light, you will not see it at all. You can't see light from the side.

Smooth/homogeneous spacetime is not place for motions i.e. for energy because such spacetime tightly fills whole truly empty infinite volume. Such spacetime even cannot be torn. It means that spacetime must be granulated. On the other hand there is the correct Noether theorem, based on smooth/homogeneous spacetime for particles moving with the speed c or lower, which ties symmetries of homogeneous spacetime with the known conservation laws.
There is only one correct solution the granulated spacetime must be composed of superluminal granules i.e. tachyons having velocity of 10^64km/sec, practically infinite and they synchronize events and forces across vast spectrum of space-time on cosmological scale.

Only then are possible motions and such spacetime looks as smooth/homogeneous spacetime for particles moving with speeds equal to the c or lower (but not for the tachyons). It is because my tachyons (physical properties of them I derived from known experimental data.

having velocity of 10^64km/sec

Why not 10^69, for example?

Why not 10^69, for example?

Because people laugh when you say 69 in science class?

Or maybe because people would laugh and point if you suggested something absurd like 10^69. 10^64 is much more reasonable.

GRBs shine as brightly as hundreds of galaxies each containing billions of stars, . . . challenges physics beyond Einstein"

The answer - neutron repulsion - was found in nuclear rest mass data of the ~3,000 nuclei that comprise the entire visible universe [1-3]:

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy"
Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).
www.omatumr.com/a...tnuc.pdf

2. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source",
Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2002)

www.omatumr.com/a...nrep.pdf

3. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

These spacetime tachyons appear in each point of truly empty infinite volume as much as about 10^18 times during the Planck time (about 10^-43 s).It is obvious that the tachyons cannot be detected directly but existence of the entangled particles suggests that the background must contain also the tachyons.

Because spacetime is composed of the very, very speedy STRUCTURELESS tachyons so there is only one set of physical laws obliging in the whole infinite volume. In all possible universes act the same physical laws. The anthropic principle is incorrect. The very, very slowly changing densities of the components the background of the infinite volume is composed of, solves the Goldilocks Enigma.

The ultimate theory must be based on tachyons because only then motions are possible and as well the Noether theorem is correct.

@Callippo and GSwift7, well the tachyonic spacetime velocity of 10^64km/sec is increasing as spacetime itself is expanding. So yes, one day it would be 10^69km/sec

if the grains were randomly oriented their presence would still have some repeatable impact

So, in a random set of orientations somehow a pattern emerges?
Has the definition of random changed lately?

It is obvious that mainstream physicists do not understand quantum gravity. We can read it in many scientific articles. Physical laws should be the same for all observers. It means that in nature is obligatory principle of relativity i.e. there are not fields totally separated from particles. It means that also spacetime must be described by the principle of relativity. It means that each motion, each interaction changes physical state of spacetime. Spacetime MUST BE COUPLED with matter. Matter curves spacetime but what is the mechanism which COUPLES spacetime with matter? How matter curves spacetime? What INTERACTION curves spacetime? It is obvious that explanation of this problem must be associated with some KINETIC phenomena spacetime should not be static! It means that spacetime MUST be granulated and composed of structureless granules because they may not curve spacetime!!!!! My theory derived from the experimental data leads to the tachyonic strings (diameter about 10^-45 m)

Actually the velocity of spacetime tachyons is 8.10^88 times higher than speed of light i.e. 8.10^88c (c=velocity of light in vacuum). For more details view:-
http://www.cosmol...dSNT.pdf

Maybe the light doesn't change because it has no mass to cause "drag" at the quantum level as it travels?

"...as well the Noether theorem is correct..." - Ulaanbatar Symmetry to the rescue!

"but what is the mechanism which COUPLES spacetime with matter? How matter curves spacetime? What INTERACTION curves spacetime?" - Ulaanbatar
Higgs did it. No. Wait. Let's 'discover' that first!

@MorituriMax, Light or its quanta photon has some tiny mass and soon it will be discovered in its gravitational structure.
hush1, listen you ignorant idiot. There are no Higgs. Thatz it! LHC found none.

Boson of Higgs doesn't exist; the tachyons must exist. Then there are holes in the standard model.the tachyons exist as fundamental property of the STR,in the connection of the two postulates of STR generating a third postulate that explains through split up of spacetime with two orientations manifolds: the constancy and the limit to speed of light, due at the breakdown of pt in the primordial vacuum( PT BROKEN) connecting space and time in spacetime continuum.

There is no Higgs boson! It's nice that the Standard Model has been so successful for what it was designed for but if we look at the way matter and inertia interact with the space-time metric there can be no particle that gives matter it's mass or inertia. Most scientists don't have a clue what dark matter is made from let alone gravitational constituent mechanisms via matter and energy.
Get a clue people....read the literature and do your research

Perhaps light does not actually travel through space. Maybe what we call light is just instantaneous opening and closing of tiny wormholes, with a swapping of momentum.

And maybe cookies are actually offal from transdimensional beings. Cookie batter in the oven is actually warped to other universes by tachyon taffy string manifolds and replaced by the digested remnants of something's lunch. Or not.

Mr. Mongolia may be right, at least about there not being a Higgs. His sentence actually makes sense.

if we look at the way matter and inertia interact with the space-time metric there can be no particle that gives matter it's mass or inertia.

Give him a 1 anyway because he is a crank, after all. My guess is he just got lucky.

Spacetime should be the simplest thing in nature, not some very complicated structure. Simplest is ideal gas and my ideal gas composed of the structureless speedy tachyons having velocity of 8.10^88C (C=Velocity of light in vacuum) leads to the experimental data, to the quantum mechanics, and to the SR and GR i.e. to the today's fundamental mainstream (NOT ultimate) theories.

Only tachyons (no matter whether bound in particles or free in spacetime) having, as a whole, eternal constant MEAN energy lead to the BASIC conservation law i.e. to the conservation law of energy. It leads also to the Principle of Relativity.

The tachyons lead to global nonlocality (Bohr wins with Einstein) and reality (Einstein wins with Bohr) of the Universe.

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present, and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation- P.A.M. Dirac.

Gravitons are not in existence. Gravitational force is carried by negative pressure created in tachyonic spacetime by masses - it is because masses have internal helicity what curves tachyonic spacetime. Gravitational field propagates with speed about 10^89 times higher than the 'c'. Such Space time is composed of speedy STRUCTURELESS tachyons. It means that the spacetime is ideal gas which for particles interacting strongly, weakly, and electromagnetically looks as continuous spacetime - it results from the times of interactions and the Principle of Relativity. Now just tally that with the recent results from ESA's Integral here.

What happens if you assume NO TIME? Instead of space-time substitute "space-inertia" or "space-mass". Would this change things? Just assume a "now" and that "time" is simply a measurement tool. Assume also (please humor me for a sec!) that as a mass accelerates towards c, nuclear processes slow down (the effect of the mass moving through the quantum substrate/foam, thus losing elemental particle/kinetic energy it is drawing from this substrate, an inverse log curve proportional to speed) and causing a mass increase. With mass increasing and processes slowing as the mass approaches c, this would have the effect (assuming a human was there), of TIME SLOWING DOWN from a local frame reference. Again, all a pure illusion because of mass increase and nuclear processes slowing. Like a battery running down and a motor running slower and slower... but I have little idea what I'm talking about, I'm still chewing this over. I do feel very strongly that time is an illusion, nothing more.

oh, then your theorizing about time is an illusion too. Because you are doing that IN TIME, I mean the psychological time that every self-identifying conscious unit feels including humans.

In my opinion, tachyonic spacetime is eternal. We could not derive mathematics from truly empty infinite volume. Nature cannot be in existence without eternal tachyons. It is such obvious that nothing ever leads to nothing. Eternal structureless substance is needed to this discussion! It is very stupid when some physicists claim that the Universe was created from nothing. They completely do not understand origin of gravity. For example to create negative potential gravitational energy there must be mass and spacetime. To create spacetime is needed positive energy and inertial mass. It causes that absolute value of the created negative gravitational energy is ALWAYS lower than the sum of mass and energy of body and spacetime. Structureless tachyons/volumes and motions of them are eternal in TIME.

This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories, says Dr Laurent.

I ruled out all string theories long ago, so will everyone else eventually.

In principle, the tiny twisting effect due to the quantum grains should have accumulated over the very large distance into a detectable signal. Because nothing was seen, the grains must be even smaller than previously suspected.

Or not exist at all considering the size of the discrepancy. Seems like an aether theory would have required the result they got.

So, some think this 3D Verse exists on a Brane and now we find out that, if the Brane exists, it has a smaller granularity than the things/forces that are on the Brane. Makes perfect sense now. Is that the gist of it, or am I missing something?

What does this imply when thinking about possible Brane<->Verse interaction or matter/energy connectivity via the Brane? Anything?

Seems like an aether theory would have required the result they got.

I'd like to see a post on this site, from the past, that predicts the granularity is below the PL.

It is interesting enough that the emissions are polarized. Is there even an explanation of why that is the case? For a blackbody radiation there should not be nay polarization.

For radio waves the rotation of the polarization occurs in ionized media, but the the lower the frequency the more it is rotated opposite of what is proposed here.

It is interesting enough that the emissions are polarized. Is there even an explanation of why that is the case?

Light emitted by pulsars is polarized.

That may be how d- and l-amino acids were first separated in meteorites.

1. "Enantiomeric Excesses in Meteoritic Amino Acids," Science 275, 951-955 (1997)

www.sciencemag.or...abstract

2. "The Sun's origin, composition and source of energy," 32nd LPSC, 1041 (2001)

http://xxx.lanl.g.../0411255

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

At what point do physicists determine that their pet theories probably arent an accurate description of the universe?

In the face of overwhelming evidence and reluctantly even then.

Expelling internal doubt - the(near)absence of reluctance.
Our apologies to Fritz and Robert.

"In the face of overwhelming evidence and reluctantly even then." - M
lol

From the Declaration of Independence, adopted in Congress 235 years ago, on July 4th, 1776:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

www.archives.gov/...ipt.html

The next 235 years will be better yet, if we can convince politicians and world leaders that they are far less powerful than the forces of Nature !

With best wishes,
Oliver Manuel

"There is some hidden mechanism that has not been discovered yet that "powers" and interacts with our reality. I feel sure it's all based on quantum physics with our universe/reality laid on top of this somehow. This quantum substrate beneath our reality might be the power source..blabla"

Hidden, feel sure...might...Sounds a lot like faith to me. And they say science is all about observation.

Johannes414, why do you ridicule faith when those you disagree with possess it? Aren't you being hypocritical?

Also, raygunner doesn't offer any evidence, so he really isn't speaking for science as a whole like you are trying to imply. I merely took his post as musings. It's not like he's claiming you will go to hell for disagreeing with him.

Hi Frank,

No more stealthy PM then? Instead of calling me stupid now its hypocrite...Well, I am impressed by your verbosity my friend.

Be blessed.

Johannes414, why should anyone respect your faith when you ridicule others' faiths as a rhetorical tactic?

It's a seemingly common theme around here for our religious regulars to either:

1) Take a person's faith and attribute it to science proper as a way of discrediting science (Faith is so whacky, am I right? oh wait...)

2) Or they take a scientific idea and try to boil it down to some leap of faith, usually a well supported scientific principle, then ridicule it.

On top of all this, they then have the gall to demand respect for their faith.

Hi Frank,

You are wrong. I did not disrespect anyone, neither did I ever demand respect. My faith is based on the Bible. The Bible is the absolute standard of truth given by God to man, and it's veracity does not depend on anyone's opinion.

If you dont like it, thats just unfortunate for you in the end. Jesus never demanded any respect either, in fact He died on the cross for all those who insult and disbelieve Him. That includes you.

By the way, why should ridiculing others be a bad thing? In an atheistic universe there is no right and wrong, and all emotions are just self-delusionary constructs caused by brain chemistry. You are being inconsistent by assuming your emotions are real. They are not unless there is a God who gave us free will and real thoughts and feelings.

You are wrong. I did not disrespect anyone, neither did I ever demand respect. My faith is based on the Bible. The Bible is the absolute standard of truth given by God to man, and it's veracity does not depend on anyone's opinion.

Well for one your statement disrespects all those whose faiths differ from yours.

By the way, why should ridiculing others be a bad thing?

Its not, ignorant godlover.

In an atheistic universe there is no right and wrong,

Thats an insult and a lie.

and all emotions are just self-delusionary constructs caused by brain chemistry.

Self-delusory is when you pretend your ability to feel was given to you by some vapor god.

You are being inconsistent by assuming your emotions are real.

No I think you are - yours are dependent on some being who isnt there.

They are not unless there is a God who gave us free will and real thoughts and feelings.

Thats another lie and insult. 'Only my god makes people human.' -says the bigot. Religion is

slavery.

Godlovers lie to people and tell them only they can know right from wrong. Some guilt-ridden people fall for this, not realizing that they feel guilty BECAUSE they already know right from wrong.

This is only one of the many ways the religious prey on people. They use emotions these people already HAVE, to convince them only god is the key to happiness. They first try to instill guilt and then say that only their god can absolve it.

By the way, why should ridiculing others be a bad thing? In an atheistic universe there is no right and wrong, and all emotions are just self-delusionary constructs caused by brain chemistry. You are being inconsistent by assuming your emotions are real. They are not unless there is a God who gave us free will and real thoughts and feelings.

What's "self-delusionary" about brain chemistry? So my real emotions aren't real because they are based on real chemistry in my real brain and not your imaginary god? Okay.

..... In an atheistic universe there is no right and wrong, and all emotions are just self-delusional constructs caused by brain chemistry.

Umm, no not quite. Athiests merely assign the determination of what is right and wrong and in-between to the collective will of the people, and do need a higher authority to validate the collective will that says "murder is wrong" "stealing is wrong".

Hi Jonseer,

The collective will of the Mayan people decided that is was perfectly ok to sacrifice children to their gods. Do you agree that Maya child sacrifice was morally right?

Hi Frank,

"What's "self-delusionary" about brain chemistry?"

Chemical reactions are not self-conscious, have no sense of right and wrong and do not discern between truth and false. So why do we have these abilities? Chemical reactions just happen beyond your control, and make the brain either deterministic or random. That would render all your decisions and thoughts meaningless. But this is not what happens.

In fact there is no clear physical causal model of how brain chemistry can cause consciousness. It is more likely that something outside the brain controls that activity. Brain activity is the substrate of consciousness, not the cause.

The collective will of the Mayan people decided that is was perfectly ok to sacrifice children to their gods. Do you agree that Maya child sacrifice was morally right?

Not to in our civil society.

In any case, you cannot possibly know what the Maya people collectively thought of the practice (even if it did occur).

That's the problem with self appointed diviner's of god's will - they can make up any shit they want and compel the population to do their bidding under threat of displeasure and retribution of the gods.

Hi Jonseer,

The collective will of the Mayan people decided that is was perfectly ok to sacrifice children to their gods. Do you agree that Maya child sacrifice was morally right?

To a MODERN western society it is of course morally wrong, just as it is morally wrong to dunk women in ponds and if they float they are Witches so must be burned to death. Of course back then it was considered the right thing to do. So you using the Mayans as a way of attacking his 'collective will' idea is of course invalid now as it just supports his view because back then Mayans believed that appeasing there gods was the only way to solve certain problems such as ensuring it will rain or ensuring a good crop that year, so to them giving there gods blood in return for getting enough to eat was considered the right thing to do.

Umm, no not quite. Athiests merely assign the determination of what is right and wrong and in-between to the collective will of the people, and do need a higher authority to validate the collective will that says "murder is wrong" "stealing is wrong".

Umm no, but the source is something you might not know although I've posted it before so you've probably just ignored it. Internal altruism coupled with external animosity is what made tribes successful.

Sound familiar? This is exactly how your religions all work. They are merely a reflection of the tribal dynamic. Xianity had that little tweak about the Gentiles, added to enable the consolidation of Europe, but that was easy to modify once the continent was conquered - just start charging poor people for absolution, and German xians began killing each other for 30 years.

Altruism is biological. Tribalism is biological. Modern society seeks to mitigate tribalism while your religions still need to exploit it to survive.
Cont

Here's a source explaining tribalism and evolution:
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-I'd also ask you to read your book with an open mind, as it also explains this, but I think that would be a futile request.

back then it was considered the right thing to do. So you using the Mayans as a way of attacking his 'collective will' idea

Mayans were also struggling with overpopulation. Infanticide was common throughout the world. In Jerusalem they gave them to moloch in Gehenna.

Judeo-xians discovered a more progressive formula - they would rather their children grow up to be expended in battle. 'Quiverfull'- you've heard of this Johan? Aggressive reproduction to outgrow the enemy and replace battle losses more quickly. Balaam saw the effects from atop the mountain. We witness them now throughout the Arab world. It will destroy the world unless the cultures which use it - YOUR culture- are destroyed.

And so another interesting topic and discussion dies...

to them giving there gods blood in return for getting enough to eat was considered the right thing to do.

This was successful in a very concrete way - reducing growth could indeed result in an adequate food supply.

@SteveL
That does not have to be inevitable. The brief OT(off topic)excursion was an impressive display of logic and psychoanalysis. O'hannis lost his shirt on this. This will not bother O'hannis. Running around naked is no obstacle for O'hannis. Only his followers are embarrassed.

"To a MODERN western society it is of course morally wrong"

Of course? Why? based on what moral principle? Is that moral principle universal or just a local convention?

If its a convention, based on what do you then condemn the local convention of the Mayans? If its universal, where does the universal moral principle originate from? Matter does not know right from wrong.

Atheist morality is simply based on a logical inconsistency, because in order to make any meaningful moral judgement they have to assume Gods laws.

Atheist morality is simply based on a logical inconsistency, because in order to make any meaningful moral judgement they have to assume Gods laws.

Or you know, they could just not be shitty people? Nah, that'd be too simple.

If its a convention, based on what do you then condemn the local convention of the Mayans? If its universal, where does the universal moral principle originate from? Matter does not know right from wrong

You ignoring me johnny? Was it moral convention for protestants to chase catholics into a church and set it on fire?

"There isn't a Christian denomination in existence that has not been slaughtered by its theological opponents. The Pope used his political power in Spain to launch the Inquisition. Bloody Mary earned her moniker by burning 300 dissenters of Roman Catholicism at the stake. The Calvinists and Lutherans used their influence over the German princes to commit near genocide of Catholics all over Europe during the 30 Years War. Catholics in the third Crusade almost exterminated the Orthodox church in Constantinople. Anabaptists have been drowned, burned, and exiled under each of the other major sects."

-Heres to xian morality.

Was it moral convention for protestants to chase catholics into a church and set it on fire?

I'm sure he'll wave this away with a 'no true christian' fallacy.

-Not to mention all the many millions of pious xians who have gleefully led themselves and their loved ones to slaughter because the church convinced them they would not die, but live in heaven forever. Jesus taught his followers how to be martyrs. Presenting oneself for killing is every bit as violent as killing someone else. The church aided and abeted this horrific travesty. Heres one:

"A boy began preaching in either France or Germany claiming that he had been visited by Jesus and told to lead a Crusade ...Through a series of supposed portents and miracles he gained a considerable following, including possibly as many as 30,000 children. He led his followers south towards the Mediterranean Sea, in the belief that the sea would part on their arrival... but this did not happen...They were then either taken to Tunisia and sold into slavery, or died in a shipwreck..." -True? Maybe. Believable? You bet. Religionists use children as suicide bombers.

Hey heres a goody. Catholic atrocity against new world natives:

"This account is from Bartolome de Las Casas. He was a missionary and conquistador. He took part in the conquest of Cuba....it was a major reason why the Taino and Arawak peoples became extinct."

"The Spaniards with their horses, their spears and lances, began to commit murders and other strange cruelties. They entered into towns and villages, sparing neither children nor old men and women. They ripped their bellies and cut them to pieces as if they had been slaughtering lambs in a field...They took little ones by their heels and crushed their heads against the cliffs [guess they got that one straight from your book]...In three or four months (myself being present) there died more than six thousand children, which the Spanish had sent into the Gold mines."

-We might conclude that this was just retribution for savages treating their own in a similar manner, as you claim. Onward xian soldiers.

"8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy are those who repay you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy are those who seize your infants
and dash them against the rocks." psalm137 (a lullaby?)

Atheist morality is simply based on a logical inconsistency, because in order to make any meaningful moral judgement they have to assume Gods laws.

Theyre NOT GODS LAWS. They existed long before your god was invented, as a natural part of human evolution. History and archeology and the rest of SCIENCE have told us this. The only unnatural and unnecessary one is the first: No other gods before me. Who needs it?

You religionists STOLE these laws so you could HIDE behind them in order to BREAK them with impunity against unbelievers. See the above posts.

Why? based on what moral principle?

The concept of treating others as you have them treat you.

If its a convention, based on what do you then condemn the local convention of the Mayans?

Self preservation. They were murdering bastards. Somewhat less so than the Aztecs. Both of them did it to support their religion.

If its universal, where does the universal moral principle originate from?

From thinking human beings but that is NOT universal. The Bible accepted slavery. I don't. The Bible was immoral on slavery. It was against the Golden Rule to enslave people and the Bible supported it.

Matter does not know right from wrong.

Neither did the authors of the sections of the Bible that supported mass murder and slavery. I am far more moral than the Bible portrays Jehovah.

Atheist morality is simply based on a logical inconsistency,

Lie. Its based on the Golden Rule and of course enlightened self interest. Why do you lie so much?>>

because in order to make any meaningful moral judgement they have to assume Gods laws.

Lie. I do quite fine morally by ignoring the Bible's since it approves of mass murder and slavery. Oh yes and there was that lovely mass murder by a bear sent by Jehovah of some kids for teasing someone about being bald.

Anyone that claims that morality is MUST be based on the Bible really should try reading it without the blinders. We have been through this before. You lost badly and you refuse to learn. The best thing about Jehovah is that he doesn't exist.

And out of curiosity just why do you think that the Bible is the word of Jehovah? Even the Bible doesn't make that claim. Why should we believe you?

Ethelred

I wouldn't classify secular governments as any more moral than religions. All have skeletons in their closet. Both bear watching closely and they should be resisted when needed lest they assume more authority over the populace than the minimum needed to serve the common good. Abuse is abuse and corruption is corruption, no matter how they are clothed.

The best thing about Jehovah is that he doesn't exist.

Exactly. Now if we could just get all those unthinking religionists in the world to catch on to Ocam's razor. A universe happened out of something primordial or out of nothing. We don't yet know why, but have no greater evidence that some omnipotent grumpy old narcissist caused it than that it simply occurred logically due to natural circumstances as yet beyond our ability to investigate.

Given the collective history and experiences of humanity, the existance of an omnipotent Spirit God is a much more simple and straighforward explanation for the uniformity and complexity of nature, the laws of logic and universal morality than a host of unobservable phenomena and fudge factors grouped together under the category "chance" facilitated by her less than honorable twin sister "long ages".

Given the collective history and experiences of humanity, the existance of an omnipotent Spirit God

Is exactly what can be expected from ignorant people the world over. Seems to be something that evolved.

simple and straighforward explanation for the uniformity and complexity of nature,

Lovely. Self statements to magically not explain anything. Uniformity and complexity qualifies and contradictory and false in the place. Nature is not uniform in detail. And it explains nothing as the god must be explained. Especially when the god is supposed to be responsible for a book that has hordes of errors.

the laws of logic and universal morality

The laws of logic are something that men explored. There is no universal morality, which is not the same as there being no morality. For instance Jehovah was highly immoral if Jehovah actually approved of slavery.>>

Fortunately the errors in the Bible make it clear that Jehovah is nonexistent or at least badly served by the authors of the Bible who show Jehovah as a seriously deranged psychopath.

host of unobservable phenomena

They aren't phenomena if they are unobservable. No wonder you think logic came from a god. You don't have any capacity for logical thought.

fudge factors grouped together under the category "chance"

Evolution is not by chance. Mutations are by chance but selection is by the environment.

facilitated by her less than honorable twin sister "long ages".

You really like to lie a lot. The world is old. Long ages existed. Thus the only dishonor is lying that they didn't exist.

Kind of like the way you lie about the Flood. It never happened and you have yet to even try to post the evidence you claimed existed. Was that just another of your lies?

Ethelred

"Evolution is not by chance. Mutations are by chance "

The supposed driving force of evolution consists of the changes in the DNA. Those changes are random mutations. Hence the driving force of evolution is essentially chance. The fact that the environment selects certain changes and surpresses others does not make the process as a whole any less random. (On a wider scale, the environment (animals, plants, climate) is also the product of evolution. The big bang is supposed to be a random event in the multiverse.)

When a set of mice is released in a maze with 7 equal paths and exits and two entrances, every inividual mouse makes a random choice for one entrance. The fact that the environment of the maze only allows exit 1-7, does not alter the fact that any give mouse will appear at random from a specific exit.

Based on what moral law should I treat others as I want to be treated? Perhaps in an evolutionary scenario, its far more beneficial to me to treat others differently.

If the golden rule is just a convention, I can break it at will and it would be void as a moral code. Atheism would then be a-moral and false, not being able to account for moral behavior.

If the golden rule is an absolute principle, its validity and existance cannot be explained by evolution, and atheism would be false as well. In every case, atheism fails as an explanatory vehicle for morality.

supposed driving force of evolution consists of the changes in the DNA

False.

Those changes are random mutations

Which are subject to Natural Selection and I have told this before.

Hence the driving force of evolution is essentially chance

Lie. Natural Selection is the driving force. Mutations are just the raw material.

fact that the environment selects certain changes and surpresses others does not make the process as a whole any less random

Lie. It is what makes it non-random and lying wont change that.

the environment (animals, plants, climate) is also the product of evolution

Yes. They interact. The environment keeps changing which is why species must evolve.

The big bang is supposed to be a random event in the multiverse.

Glad to know that someone knows the exact cause of the BB. No one but you seems so sure. Then again you are wrong nearly all the time on things we can check so its likely wrong in this as well.>>

When a set of mice is released in a maze with 7 equal paths and exits and two entrances, every inividual mouse makes a random choice for one entrance.

Bet they have individual tendencies to go one way or another.

The fact that the environment of the maze only allows exit 1-7, does not alter the fact that any give mouse will appear at random from a specific exit.

Very nice. That is one of the longest non-sequitors I have seen. Irrelevant claims about randomness has nothing to do with Natural Selection which is not random and definitely occurs.

Why don't go read on this before you make lying posts about it. Read something from someone that actually understands evolution. Someone besides me of course since you can't retain what I tell you. You seem to learn from Ken Hamm and he is just as big a Liar For Jesus as you are. Jesus would be so mad at you if he was still alive. Assuming he had better morals than Jehovah.

Ethelred

Based on what moral law should I treat others as I want to be treated?That is not a moral law by itself. It is simply common sense. If you don't do that you shouldn't expect others to do it. Try taking a logic class some day.

Perhaps in an evolutionary scenario, its far more beneficial to me to treat others differently.

Perhaps it would get you killed. We are a social species and not understanding how others behave is contrary to long term survival. However based on the amount you lie I guess that empathy is not something you inherited.

If the golden rule is just a convention, I can break it at will

Well since it is common sense it isn't just a convention. It is a survival trait and breaking it can tend to get you dead.

Atheism would then be a-moral and false,

Lying all the time is immoral. You really should stop doing it. It tends to get you labeled as a liar. Then no one can trust you which will lower your chances of survival.>>

If the golden rule is an absolute principle,

If you weren't a liar you would be a horse. To make it clear to your impoverished brain that means it is not an absolute principle. It is simply a good idea.

its validity and existance cannot be explained by evolution,

Since I just did exactly that you are wrong yet again. And since I did it before for you that means you are either incompetent or lying. Both is a strong possibility.

In every case, atheism fails as an explanatory vehicle for morality.

I never claimed it was. I simply point out that morality is EVOLVED not a product of atheism. Humans evolved as a social species and thus empathy is a survival trait. I cannot help it if logic is thing you can't manage. However constantly repeating the same nonsense isn't going to make it true. Nor is slavery going to disappear from things approved by the Bible. The Bible is still a VERY bad source of morality.

Ethelred

I agreed that there were species.

Which was evasion of the actual question.

And in so far as there are multiple species, there must be speciation, I agreed to that too.

No you didn't. You went out of your away to avoid saying anything remotely like admitting that speciation occurred.

And in this case I suspect you are still hiding your belief. You don't think speciation is by evolution do you?

I do not like the terms because they are poorly and variously defined.

So give a definition you can accept instead of evading the questions.

But you did not want that. You wanted to proselytize and you continue to do that.

Actually he wanted you to answer the question and you refused to do so. You tried to give the impression that you answered without actually answering. You do seem to have FINALLY answered. In a post where you berate Frank for his efforts to get a straight answer. That was decidedly nasty of you.>>

Sorry about the previous post. It was intended for another thread and when I tried to edit it the SUBMIT button refused to function on multiple refreshes of the page. Very frustrating.

Ethelannoyedred

The fact that the environment selects certain changes and surpresses others does not make the process as a whole any less random.

False, idiot. The very fact that some traits are preferentially selected means that it ain't random.

Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the Planck scale: the minuscule 10-35 of a metre, where a millimetre is 10-3 m.

However, Integrals observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller.

Either the numbers don't add up, or the statement being made is void:

If previous observations were 10000 times less accurate, then doesn't that mean that by those observations the graininess would still be limited by at least 10000*10^-48m = 10^-43m? That's still a lot smaller than the Planck length, so doesn't that mean we already knew that there are no grains, at least not at the scale postulated?

Apparently the only thing we learned is that we now can see with even more accuracy that the holographic unverse theory was wrong.

Or am I missing something?

(double post)

Zephyr

If you want to give me ones why don't you have the guts to use your original name?

Yes rawa1 is Yet Another Zephyr login.

Ethelred

At the forefront, science and spirituality merge in describing the one great Reality that surrounds and sustains us.

At the rear, wanna-be scientists and spiritualists hide under robes of dogmatic self-righteousness and claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

"That is not a moral law by itself. It is simply common sense"
"Well since it is common sense it isn't just a convention"

Where does this common principle originate from? Evolution tells us everything developed over time from the amoeba, but there is no proof that people in the past based their laws on murder and theft being acceptable.

Furthermore, a common principle is only common if is independent of time and place. So evolution will end up in a paradox if it tries to provide a foundation for universal principles. Time independent common principles do not develop over time...

In fact the golden rule is spiritual, and is mentioned in the Bible. But atheists have proven in the past that they have nor problem borrowing from God's Word.

" It is a survival trait and breaking it can tend to get you dead."

Can you provide some evidence for that? History is full of examples of kings and empires that survived quite well without showing much empathy in dealing with their opponents.

Furthermore, if empathy would be just a biological function, then it cannot be any basis for moral behavior. Morality is based on a difference between right and wrong. If right and wrong are just chemical reactions in the brain then morality would in fact not exist. In that case, atheism would be a-moral and inconsistent with the fact that people do make moral choices and consider them to be genuine.

Left or right, atheism (via the theory of evolution) can never account for the existence for moral behavior of people based on a deeply felt distinction between right and wrong. Evolution fails.

Given the collective history and experiences of humanity, the existance of an omnipotent Spirit God is a much more simple and straighforward explanation

Except that's not how things LOOK. When scientists look at the world without emotion it resembles the one your book describes very little. it LOOKS like the universe is billions of years old. It LOOKS like evolution is real. Etc.

Why is that Johan? Either your book is a sham or your god is deceptive. In this your book is more accurate in that it describes a very deceptive and cruel, and confused and petty, god indeed.

He requires his adherents to lie to themselves and others in order to try to reconcile this growing disparity. Aren't you at least a little bitter about that?

Every day your god looks more and more like a fabrication, a clever political expedient. This is undeniable by any except the substantially self-deluded.

Left or right, atheism (via the theory of evolution) can never account for the existence for moral behavior of people based on a deeply felt distinction between right and wrong. Evolution fails.

By never you mean until you read this article and understand that morality is the result of evolution? Morality is NATURAL. Life would not work without it.
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-Just read the intro. I would copy paste it for you but my iPhone won't let me. If you want to understand the whole process of how science discovered the source of morality you'll have to read the whole thing.

Your 'morality' is as old as life itself. Which is billions of years if you didn't already know. The human sort was selected for as a functional part of the tribal dynamic.

Go on. Read it. Knowledge is a good thing despite what your god said in genesis.

Where does this common principle originate from?

Not principle. Common sense. Not a principle but a matter of actually THINKING about something.

Evolution tells us everything developed over time from the amoeba,

No. It shows that life changes over time. It does NOT tell us how it started and certainly didn't start from euchariotic animal. Go learn something from people that actually aren't ignorant.

but there is no proof that people in the past based their laws on murder and theft being acceptable.

Well there is the Bible that clearly accepts mass murder, rape, pillage and theft. I don't but the Bible most certainly does. It even says that a woman must marry a man that rapes her. Since none of those things are accepted as moral today, unless of course YOU follow the Bible on this, morals are not universal and it is very clear that the Bible is a VERY bad source for moral behavior by present day standards.>>

Furthermore, a common principle is only common if is independent of time and place.

That is false. A principle can be common to a culture that existed in a specific place for a specific time. Such as murdering people for saying Jehovah. That isn't acceptable today.

Gosh this would be like shooting fish in a barrel only that would be harder.

So evolution will end up in a paradox if it tries to provide a foundation for universal principles.

Evolution is a process. It doesn't try to do anything. In any case there is no universal moral principle. We clearly established that in previous discussions as well. You admitted that slavery is not acceptable today and you claimed it was just fine in the Bible. I would thank you for support in this matter if you could just remember that it was you that supported slavery in the Bible and I am the one that is against it. I really don't like being supported by immoral people.>>

Not principle. Common sense. Not a principle but a matter of actually THINKING about something.

Ethel has never read the article either. For healthy individuals Morality is a normal compulsion. We can choose to be immoral.

Morality is NOT a product of the intellect. Humans have been selected for it.

So evolution will end up in a paradox if it tries to provide a foundation for universal principles.

Please give an example of one. Where is that universal moral principle? It sure isn't in the Bible as we do tolerate slavery today. Well I don't though you seem to.

In fact the golden rule is spiritual,

I practice and I am not spiritual so you are wrong yet again. Pretty much everything you say is wrong. Its amazing that anyone could be wrong so often.

and is mentioned in the Bible.

And other places as well. Some where the people actually practice it unlike in the Bible.

atheists have proven in the past that they have nor problem borrowing from God's Word.

Lie. While I don't speak for the Atheists, as I am Agnostic, I can't borrow from something that doesn't exist. Jehovah doesn't exist and if it did exist it certainly did not practice the Golden Rule as can be seen in all the murders it is alleged to have engaged in.>>

It 'looks' like evolution is real? Well, looks can be deceiving, and looks fade away. And last time I checked evolutionists claim that evoluton is a fact, and not a look. But anyway, their facts are missing so 'look' is what they have.

The universe 'looks' old? Have you seen the universe when it was young? If not, your assumption is just based on the presuppostion that it is old. No star or planet has ever communicated its age to our cosmologists. It's just their worldview that leads them to 'think' it must be old.

History is full of examples of kings and empires that survived quite well

No. It is full of Kings that tended to die by the hand others and most of the Empires had short lives. Just try finding a descendant of the Tudors.

Furthermore, if empathy would be just a biological function, then it cannot be any basis for moral behavior.

Rubbish. It is hard to understand others without empathy. Thus having it improves your chances of knowing how to deal with other people. Not knowing how does tend to get people dead. Including Kings.

Morality is based on a difference between right and wrong.

It is based on survival.

If right and wrong are just chemical reactions in the brain then morality would in fact not exist.

Sure it is and sure it does. Morality is what we call the survival skill of dealing with other people.
>>

In that case

And in the case that shit smells like roses shit smells good. The case you state is false so the conclusion based on the false premises are false.

Left or right, atheism (via the theory of evolution) can never account for the existence for moral behavior

I just did it. Of course I am an Agnostic so perhaps that is why I can account for morals. Clearly the Bible cannot account for slaver being considered immoral. But enlightened self-interest can.

Evolution fails.

Evolution functions by selecting out those that die. Which functioning by failure.

Don't ever get tired of making shit up and calling it roses? I find your behavior immoral.

Ethelred

Ethel,

"I am Agnostic"

One definition says: "Doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding the existence of a God or of all deities"
Another: "The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable"

So there is no absolute truth? Are you absolutely sure? If yes, doesnt that mean there is absolute truth? If no, doesnt that mean there is absolute truth?

And then you say:

"Jehovah doesn't exist"

If knowledge or truth about God is really unattainable, then your statement about Jehovah is false (a lie as you say). If you are not certain, how can you know YHWH does not exist at the same time? You are contradicting yourself. If you are sure He does not exist, you should stop putting yourself in the doubting camp.

But then inconsistency is the fate of everyone that rejects the Biblical God.

Sounds like Johannes is atheist with regard to Allah. Careful John, you're playing with (hell)fire.

Hi Thales,

There is only 1 God. In that Christians and Muslims see eye to eye. Where we differ is the identity of Jesus Christ (to name the most important one). I believe Jesus Christ is God based on the Bible and my personal faith in Him. Jesus is the Father manifested in flesh (1 Tim 3:16), and He is the way to heaven, because only through His flesh and blood there is remission of sins.

Evolution tells us everything developed over time from the amoeba, but there is no proof that people in the past based their laws on murder and theft being acceptable.

"So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered - men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)

Murder and theft against an enemy are a requisite of the tribal dynamic and an integral part of the judeo-xian islamic ethic.
cont

"Among the living tribal peoples, he added, "the virtues are practised almost exclusively in relation to the men of the same tribe" and the corresponding vices "are not regarded as crimes" if practised on other tribes (Darwin, 1871, Vol. I: 182, 179)

-The state-sponsored religions made it possible to extend the perception of 'tribe' over ever-larger and more inclusive groups as they were added to the realm.

Today many cultures accept the notion of the human race as one 'tribe' and as such, all individuals are worthy of moral treatment. This can, however, be tempered as needed.

Alas, cultures dominated by religious dogma still harbor and promote the 'us vs them' or what Spencer described;

"...the 'code of amity' and the 'code of enmity'. The theme of ethnocentrism-cum-xenophobia was later elaborated by Sumner (1906; 1911), who also coined the term 'ethnocentrism'."

Hi Thales,

There is only 1 God. In that Christians and Muslims see eye to eye. Where we differ is the identity of Jesus Christ (to name the most important one). I believe Jesus Christ is God based on the Bible and my personal faith in Him. Jesus is the Father manifested in flesh (1 Tim 3:16), and He is the way to heaven, because only through His flesh and blood there is remission of sins.

"The Quran's Surah 17 111 says: "Praise be to Allah, who begets no son, ..."

-Your should read more outside your genre.

Based on what moral law should I treat others as I want to be treated? That is not a moral law by itself. It is simply common sense. If you don't do that you shouldn't expect others to do it. Try taking a logic class some day.

"Meanwhile, social solidarity and common morality developed by a similar process of NATURAL SELECTION. Every advance in morality and social solidarity would have survival value for the group in which it occurred, Darwin added:
At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase..." (Darwin, 1871,Vol. I: 166).

"Tribes in which noble behavior was high would come to dominate those in which it was low, thus group selection would favor tribes of brave and self-sacrificing individuals over the selfish and cowardly..." (Richards, 1987; Cronin, 1991).

"The god of Islam, Allah, is most definitely NOT the God of the Bible.

"Allah is presented in the Koran as an autocratic ruler who is aloof and arbitrary (Sura 5:40). Allah is unknowable whereas the God of the Bible is knowable (2 Timothy 1:12). Allah is impersonal, unlike the personal God the Scriptures reveal (1 Peter 5:6-7). Allah is unitarian (Sura 4:48) whereas the God of the Bible is trinitarian (2 Corinthians 13:14). Here is what the Koran says about the God of the Bible (Sura 4:171): "Believe in Allah and say not 'Trinity.' Cease! It is better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son."

"Allah is capricious (Sura 2:284), whereas the true God is trustworthy. And Allah is never anywhere presented as a god of love - which is the essence of the nature of the true God (1 John 4:7-16)."
cont

its great to be in probably of the most intelligent place on the planet but im so tied of the sickness and having to burn the screen on my brain but the books are wrong - their all encoded you only have half the text - you could say its why there's no miracles - i don't know - they have been placed out of line whilst your masters are using ceremonial world order star dates to control the planet - its not the alien clockwork elves either they live in the mines - its a world order thats always been here

"Jesus - The Koran denies point blank that Jesus was the Son of God (Sura 112:2-3). It also denies His atoning sacrifice by claiming that he never died (Sura 4:157). A substitute died for Him on the Cross. Jesus was translated to Heaven, like Enoch, where He will remain until He returns to kill all pigs, DESTROY ALL CROSSES, and convert the world to Islam.

"Jesus will marry, reign for 40 years and then die and be buried next to Muhammad in Medina.8 Jesus is characterized in the Koran as nothing more than "an apostle of Allah" (Sura 4:171).
Source: The Truth About Islam Dr. David R. Reagan

-Johans jesus is inseparable from his trifurcated deity. Thus his god is a separate creature from allah and still retains its original tribal persona.

'My god is better than your god' says johan to achmed. 'Is not' says achmed. Blood begins to flow in great rivulets and the nile runs red. 'Not again!' cries mahatma.

'My god is better than your god' says alfredo to johan. 'But theyre the SAME GOD!' screams johan. 'Bestemmiatore! MY god has a MOTHER!' 'Why you popish-' 'Bastardo!!' stab choke kick-

as on earth as it is in heaven - there are no banks in heaven

Hmmm...I never said Allah was the Biblical God. I said Muslims and Christians agree that there is just 1 God.

Hmmm...I never said Allah was the Biblical God. I said Muslims and Christians agree that there is just 1 God.

And so you said:

There is only 1 God. In that Christians and Muslims see eye to eye.

Their eyes are adjacent and yet their beliefs are diametrically opposed, is that correct?

The Theory of Rips predicts that the graininess of space is due to the gravity tubes that run between particles (rips). The cross-sectional area of the gravity tubes between particles (rips) is inversely related to the distance between those particles (rips), therefore the graininess of space can be infinitesimally small. The cross-sectional area of a gravity tube can never be greater than the cross-sectional area of the particles (rips) at the ends of that gravity tube, therefore the graininess of space would always be smaller than the smallest particles (rips). If particles (rips) are at great, almost infinite, distances from each other, the cross-sectional area of the gravity tube between them would be infinitesimally small, thus "the graininess of space" would be on scales much below the Plank Length. Thus the graininess of space would be infinitely small.
© Copyright 2011 Thomas A. Sullivan

COINCIDENTLY theres a story in the NYT which speaks directly to evolutionary morality:

"David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary theorist at the State University of New York at Binghamton, sees the onset of humanity's cooperative, fair-and-square spirit as one of the major transitions in the history of life on earth, moments when individual organisms or selection units band together and stake their future fitness on each other. A larger bacterial cell engulfs a smaller bacterial cell to form the first complex eukaryotic cell. Single cells merge into multicellular organisms of specialized parts. Ants and bees become hive-minded superorganisms and push all other insects aside."
cont

Lol, ~15 years on the internet and I've never seen anyone copyright a post before.

"A major transition occurs when you have mechanisms for suppressing fitness differences and establishing equality within groups, so that it is no longer possible to succeed at the expense of your group," Dr. Wilson said. "It's a rare event, and it's hard to get started, but when it does you can quickly dominate the earth." Human evolution, he said, "clearly falls into this paradigm."

-Morality is evolutionary. It confers direct advantage on tribes who exhibit it.
http://www.nytime...ier.html

Ive been thinking... humans learned to use tools. Humans learned to domesticate plants and animals as part of their cultural evolution. Leaders were a natural facet of the tribal dynamic - herds, bands, packs all have dominant members who lead and direct others.

Could cooperation and the rule of law (morality) be a consequence of Leaders exercising the principles of direction, domestication, and 'tool use' over other members of their tribe? The most successful tribes were also the ones whose members could enact ever more complex strategy in the field against enemies.

Members had to be able to follow orders. They would be seen more and more as 'tools' or 'beasts' to be managed in support of the dominant families - the Leader castes. Obedience and subservience are also hallmarks of johans religionism, which we know is only the institutionalization of the tribal dynamic.

Leaders - domesticating their flocks - an evolutionary Inevitability.

"Ferguson points out that warfare enforces civic unity, engenders civic virtue, promotes social organization, and in fact may be an essential condition for the very existence of civilization (Dawson, 1996)."

"... Already we have ample proof that centralized control is the primary trait acquired by every body of fighting men, be it hordes of savages, groups of brigands, or mass of soldiers. And this centralized control, necessitated during war, characterizes the government during peace (Spencer, 1876, Vol. I, Pt. 2: 576)."

"Like Spencer, Bagehot assumed war had been a major agent in this process: "progress is promoted by the competitive examination of constant war" (p. 64). Like Spencer, he emphasized that warfare succeeds not so much through the genocidal elimination of rivals as by promoting SUPERIOR ORGANIZATION and OBEDIENCE TO LEADERSHIP: the most obedient and the tamest tribes are the strongest."

Ethel, "I am Agnostic"

One definition says: "Doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding the existence of a God or of all deities". Another: "The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable"

IMO 'agnostic' is a bullshit word. I identify myself as an atheist, but clearly do not know if god exists (or how you could define a god). Agnostic is a bullshit definition because for any critical thinker the default position is to be skeptical of claims that are unsupported by evidence.

I no more know whether the flying spaghetti monster exists or Bigfoot exists, but there isn't a weaselly special word for not knowing if they, or an infinite number of other unknowns, exist.

So there is no absolute truth? Are you absolutely sure? If yes, doesnt that mean there is absolute truth? If no, doesnt that mean there is absolute truth

Absolute truth is a philosophical notion. We will never discover the absolute nature of reality for example. But in other, human derived domains, there can be absolute knowledge or truth.

And then you say:
"Jehovah doesn't exist"

If knowledge or truth about God is really unattainable, then your statement about Jehovah is false

No, he's stating that the god of the bible doesn't exist, not the notion of a generic god as a concept.

But then inconsistency is the fate of everyone that rejects the Biblical God.

Ironic. The embrace of inconsistency is a prerequisite for believing in biblical bullshit.

I was reading on another forum about a debate between Lawrence Krauss (cosmologist) and William Craig (theologian) about the existence of god.

Someone said this of Craig. Sound familiar?

He's the master of "baffle with bullshit." Watch any debate with him, and the thing that stands out the most is how flat-out annoying it is to debunk anything he says just because he's constructed it in a way that doing so would be really tedious.

He'll put bad facts together in logically-unsound ways, so then you'd have to decide which to refute. He tends to deliver arguments all-at-once and interwoven instead of point-by-point. Most of it is logically unsound, but showing that it's logically unsound won't do a huge amount of damage to the core point. He'll make factual assertions about things that are unknown (like hard numeric probabilities of things that he thinks would require God), which means it's impossible to refute those with the real facts.

I was reading on another forum about a debate between Lawrence Krauss (cosmologist) and William Craig (theologian) about the existence of god.

Someone said this of Craig. Sound familiar?

Yup. What's truly funny is that as each time the cretinists try to insert their tentacles into the classroom and get defeated, they EVOLVE a new strategy and try again, and yet they rail against the teaching of the very process they're adopting!

If equilibrium between the neutron and the hydrogen atom

N <=> H-atom

Determines whether the universe expands => or contracts <=

Then reincarnation of all atomic structures during this expansion

(Including you and me, the elephant, that rock, and the tree)

May recur in the next cyclic expansion of the universe!

See: "Is the Universe Expanding", Journal of Cosmology (2011)

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

"N <=> H-atom

Determines whether the universe expands => or contracts <="

The universe was already expanding long before neutrons (or electrons, protons, hydrogen atoms, etc) existed.

Sorry frank my iPhone sometimes can't distinguish between 4 and 5 stars. Good exerpt. The only way to defend nonsense is with more nonsense I guess. Johan and the others obviously do their cause more harm than good when they post here.

Their creation museum is going bankrupt don't you know? They should've had rides like disneyworld. Same basic theme. Red sea waterpark? That would be cool.

Their creation museum is going bankrupt don't you know? They should've had rides like disneyworld. Same basic theme. Red sea waterpark? That would be cool.

"Ride the dinosaurs just like Jesus did!"

Hi Thales,

There is only 1 God. In that Christians and Muslims see eye to eye. Where we differ is the identity of Jesus Christ (to name the most important one). I believe Jesus Christ is God based on the Bible and my personal faith in Him. Jesus is the Father manifested in flesh (1 Tim 3:16), and He is the way to heaven, because only through His flesh and blood there is remission of sins.

So you don't differ on who the god is? I ask because it sounds like you're conflating Jehovah with Allah. Do you accept the existence of Allah or not?

The universe was already expanding long before neutrons (or electrons, protons, hydrogen atoms, etc) existed.

Do you know that?

See: "Is the Universe Expanding? ["The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)]

http://journalofc...102.html

Perhaps the only change in cosmic evolution, to be witnessed in the reincarnation of atomic structures in the next expansion of the universe, will be changes in our ATTITUDES toward the things* that are controlled by cause and effect.

(*Including you and me, the elephant, that rock, and the tree)

"Grant me the serenity to accept things*
That are controlled by cause and effect, and
Wisdom to change my attitude toward Reality."
--Modified Serenity Prayer by Reinhold Niebuhr

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Tumor. Why do you think a particle decaying will expand space and not just take up more space? How do you explain the expansion of space between galaxies (little or no neutrons yet where we see expansion) vs. expansion within stars (lots of neutrons yet no expansion observed).
Stop with this way wrong theory and stick to "sun is a neutron star" nonsense instead.

@thales:

"Ride the dinosaurs just like Jesus did!"

LOL. You mean like this: http://www.fugly....saur.jpg]http://www.fugly....saur.jpg[/url]

or this: http://i576.photo...85516690

or mebbe this (w-PZ Myers): http://www.fugly....saur.jpg]http://www.fugly....saur.jpg[/url]

Ooops, first & last link should be:

http://img.photob...saur.jpg

and

http://struckbyen...yers.jpg

Oliver, do you really need to spam almost every single thread in the astronomy section with your posts about nonsense? You take everything off topic with your Neutron repulsion thia iron sun that.... do you have some sort of obssesive compulsive disorder or something? you just keep going on and ignore any questions that could prove you wrong.

@Pyle
"Why do you think a particle decaying will expand space and not just take up more space?" - Pyle.

Because space would be filled up by now?
(I'm just being silly. A child however will ask you this. How will you answer the child? lol)

Oliver, do you really need to spam almost every single thread in the astronomy section with your posts about nonsense? You take everything off topic with your Neutron repulsion thia iron sun that.... do you have some sort of obssesive compulsive disorder or something? you just keep going on and ignore any questions that could prove you wrong.

Should these Experimental Observations [1] be ignored so the Big Bang model of an imaginary finite universe can be promoted?

Should these Experimental Observations [1] be ignored so mysterious stories of Dark Energy and Dark Matter can continue as science?

Or would you like to offer some other explanation for the observations [1]?

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

One definition says: "Doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding the existence of a God or of all deities"

I am not beholden to bad definitions.

No one can prove nor disprove the existence of any sufficiently vaguely defined god. Any sufficiently defined god is subject to proof. Your version of Jehovah, the Jehovah of Genesis is sufficiently defined to be proved or disproved. Since the world is billions years old and there was no Great Flood and rather a lot of testable things Jehovah is disproved.

So there is no absolute truth?

I didn't say that. Neither did the man that coined the word Agnostic and its his definition that I use, and it is the only correct definition, however I am not defined by it.

Are you absolutely sure?

You really shouldn't try
to make my position for me. It makes you look ever so idiotic.>>

And then you say:

"Jehovah doesn't exist"

Not 'And then' as the part preceding was shit you made up. Clearly you are willing to make up all kinds of things to support your god.

Jehovah does not exist UNLESS

Either the Bible is wrong about Jehovah

Or

The world was constructed to look exactly unlike the world described in the Bible. Which would be highly immoral but then the Bible does show Jehovah as a savagely immoral entity.

If knowledge or truth about God is really unattainable,

False. At least for Jehovah.

hen your statement about Jehovah is false

Since you made up my side that does not follow from anything that I actually said.

(a lie as you say).

You really should be aware now that I will call a lie a lie. So quit lying about my position. It is reprehensible but then you seem to have learned to be reprehensible from the Bible.>>

If you are not certain, how can you know YHWH does not exist at the same time?

I never claimed to be uncertain about Jehovah. You just made that up.

You are contradicting yourself.

No. Just the shit you lied about.

If you are sure He does not exist, you should stop putting yourself in the doubting camp.

It is only sufficiently defined gods that I am sure about. There are lots others. I would never claim that a Deist god does not exist.

But then inconsistency is the fate of everyone that rejects the Biblical God.

Truth is the fate those that reject nonsense like a god that murdered almost life a mere 4400 years ago. I like that fate. I really don't want to be a Liar For Jesus and you constant lies about me and science will not change that.

Stop lying. Its immoral. Unless you really think it would be good for everyone else to start telling lies about you of course.

Ethelred

Not that anybody here cares any more but...
Nerlich, in his weekly column at Universe Today, wrote a pretty good article on the Integral result. But more interestingly the regulars over at UT tore it up in the comments below the article. (Made my brain hurt.)
http://www.univer...ularity/

@Pyle,

"Nerlich, in his weekly column at Universe Today, wrote a pretty good article on the Integral result. But more interestingly the regulars over at UT tore it up in the comments below the article. (Made my brain hurt.)
http://www.univer...ularity"

Totally agree. Some of the comments by crowell, who has published work in theoretical physics, I found quite interesting (and quite honest). Flimmer and Larsson both are both familiar with some of this work and likewise had rather insightful comments, among others(and, yeah, brain strain).

Anyone interested in how these Integral results figure in the larger cosmological context might want to check out the UT column. Good call, Pyle.

Second the call of Pyle. Good call. Good read. Thks.

Mr. Mongolia is right!
Mass is part of a particle! It is not "given" to a particle. Yet mass with no other particles present cannot be realized, it cannot be detected, it has nothing to be relative to. If there are no other paticles mass has no properties because it does not have anything to be relative with! Therefore relativity would not exist. Particles are not given mass by other particles, other particles only give that particle something to be relative to."
© Copyright 2011 Thomas A. Sullivan