The Properties of Soul

reply to post by Greylorn


Particularly, oh ignorant one, what I posted can be classified as a form of Integral Metaphysics. Go look it up or Google it and learn something besides peering into your huge ego where what he Buddhist call emptiness abides in spades, and I don’t mean the good emptiness.

I mean the emptiness filled with your colossal ego, bitterness, and vanity.

May the lord have mercy on your soul!

reply to post by Greylorn

And how would you know?

That you haven't studied enough physics? Easy. I have.

Anyone who theorises a force carrier for a force that shows no signs of existing, thinks this force carrier needn't be a particle, thinks waves and particles can be distinguished from one another by simply invoking the word 'classical' (or indeed, in any other way), imagines that the interaction of his impossible particle with other particles can be consumnated without the expenditure of energy or without raising the local temperature — and, above all, anyone who imagines that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be repealed, temporarily or permanently, in any shape or form — is clearly a complete ignoramus when it comes to the subject of physics.

What is the wavefunction of a beon? Can it be described as a sum over histories? What happens to all the other potential soul-states when the wavefunction collapses? Mass extermination?

Maxwell's Demon cannot exist in practice (or even, it seems, in theory) — and if it did, it would have to operate by erasing information. A pretty odd property for a carrier of memories.

No physics whatsoever is evident in a single one of your posts to date. What you have done — just like Madame Blavatsky and all those New Age 'nitwits' against whom you love to inveigh — is use vaguely-comprehended terms and concepts from physics as metaphors for a shedload of hapless mumbo-jumbo.

In spite of your posturing, you have nothing more to offer than a common crank. One, I am sorry to say, with a particularly repellent attitude and obnoxious manners.

The dance is over, old boy, and you've failed the audition.

reply to post by Greylorn

I know I said I'm gone, but I just had to comment on a few things which come from the heart.....

At the personal level, the only reason that I write these ideas is in hopes of achieving the classical Buddhist concept of "Nirvana," which contrary to popular belief is not a synonym for heaven. Nirvana means "extinguished," or deprived forever of conscious self-awareness and the intelligence that brought it into being. According to classical Buddhism, this can only be a conscious choice made from the highest levels of Buddhist enlightenment.

Cool, something we can agree on........ I'm game, and know a handful of people who have reached Enlightenment. They are now either authors, teachers, or hermits living in silence.

The invention of a story does not make it wrong. After all, every powerful theory (Thermodynamics, Relativity, QM, etc.) begins with invention. Over time a few good minds (I'm waiting for them to appear here)

In that quote right there, is a poignantly disgusting level of arrogance based on theories you think are of substance. I say this to point out that your ego is a fetter in the pursuit (or rather Uncovering) of Enlightenment. It's tough to gather context through written words without seeing facial expression, body language, having empathy, and because of that, assuming a vast array of illusions.

I know I have an ego, and I know I could be wrong on many various topics. But I feel I've never been more right than to detect a disgustingly atrocious level, bordering on psychopathic narcissism, of pure arrogance & big headed chest-puffery. It's amusing considering we are discussing "soul" and "enlightenment."

I have never claimed that "the eternal soul exists." Only stupid people who are programmed by absurd religious beliefs would do that.

The handful of people that I personally know who have enlightenment, claim direct experience, first hand knoweldge, of their own soul.

Putting a dent in another one of your points. (sorry, but this is how we all learn) Those handful of folks I know personally to have Enlightenment, THEY ALL SAY they have an immaterial soul!!!!! (had to repeat twice, cause from experience, big headed folks have really thick skulls)

You want to know the cool thing about this all? I also have found my soul, and know that past all that big headed arrogance, which is basically just the programming of this world screaming out, is a soul just like mine, Loving, content, peaceful, and connected to the Source.

I Love you.......and as a Loving Brother, I hope you become aware of the Fetter of Arrogance. You might actually make some friends that way.

Astyanax with the nail on the head:

The dance is over, old boy, and you've failed the audition.

You're a legend in your own mind. Get over it and just Be

Willtell

 

Particularly, oh ignorant one, what I posted can be classified as a form of Integral Metaphysics. Go look it up or Google it and learn something besides peering into your huge ego where what he Buddhist call emptiness abides in spades, and I don’t mean the good emptiness.

I mean the emptiness filled with your colossal ego, bitterness, and vanity.

May the lord have mercy on your soul!

edit on 9-9-2013 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

Okay, I bit, and looked up Integral Metaphysics, read the first paragraph and mentally barfed. You sucked me in. Chuckle away.

For anyone here who might be interested in what someone who does not read my material but dislikes it anyway is personally attracted to at the pseudo-intellectual level, try this link. www.integralworld.net..., which displays the thinking of a recently graduated nit with credentials in Communication (i.e. BS) and Philosophy (i.e. BS).

If his first sentence does not generate mental flags such as "another religious nut," or "cognitive dissonance," or "neurolinguistic programming by way of redefinition," you will adore his religious claptrap.

Willtell, don't you worry about "my soul," because its future would be none of your business, even if I had such a thing and if it was relevant. I am beon, and I have a body. Had the "lord" disliked my interpretations of reality, he could have smitten me a dozen times when I offered easy opportunities. Instead "the lord" (meaning, whatever powers that be who might intervene, but who we cannot even empirically detect at our relatively primitive technological state) was content with breaking a lot of my bones, ripping up muscles, arteries, ligaments and nerves. His willingness to provide some aftermarket replacement parts and excellent surgeons who knew how to install them was either forgiveness, or the promise of more pain down the road. I'll know which when my "fat lady" finally sings. Or, like most of us, I may end up knowing nothing.

I reject your petty, insolent, and implied Christian-style threat. How dare you invoke God's mercy on my soul? Do you think that Jesus Christ would have made such an arrogant, presumptuous threat? If you do, perhaps you'd better give Matthew, Mark, and Luke an honest read. This will require intellectual integrity, and that requires more practice than you seem to have put in.

To give yourself a break while perusing the New Testament and catching up on the principles that Jesus Christ taught, while not tolerating the religionist nitwits who challenged his principles, you might want to look up the words "nitwit" and "hypocrite." Well, you won't want to do that. Look them up anyway.

Originally posted by Greylorn

The soul must be minimally conscious and somewhat intelligent. At some level it must be self-aware. What would be the point of post-death existence in the absence of self-awareness?

If you will:
Suppose here that the soul & consciousness move from one body (in this case, let it be the human body) to another body after the process of death.
Of course, that body will be connected to the soul in its own "physical" way, and will be "material" to its own realm.
Suppose further that every single body available to the soul (let's say that there are just 7 of them) has a composition appropriate for the realm which the given body would be located in. The soul does not have to be that which is self aware or intelligent if that soul's retention of memory offers the consciousness of self to the given entity who has once learned enough of self-awareness.

On the subject of the evolution of the soul-bearing body, you may suppose that of the soul's bodies, at least 1 of them has no need for the soul; rather, such body needs only to evolve in the material world. That same body develops its material form, including the brain, so to have materialized its use of mind which at least would be intelligence accumulated from interaction with its planetary environment. As it continues evolution and becomes more intelligent, the mind & body entity may one day become, to a degree, conscious of self, and thus capable of housing a soul.

Originally posted by Greylorn
The only component of yourself that is relevant to a post-death scenario is your conscious mind. If the soul is to survive in a meaningful manner, it must be that mind, or the entity that contains the properties of mind.

Post-death:
The soul, having moved out of an unsuitable body and having moved into the proper body, enables the possibility for the [affected] mind, body, and spirit-entity to continue consciousness. The thoughts at post-death could be that concerning awareness of the bodily death and of the discovered state of being or location; not to mention, the post-death entity has access to its memory of life/lives.

If it is possible to briefly tell, may you answer me:
Why does the "beon" exist, and why is it in the human?

I welcome the responses attempting to offer, to those who have read this post, a sensible line of thought, as I know this supposition has no evidence behind it.
--
Off-topic, but I ask the OP:
Care to read this PDF and post into this thread concerning what you think about it?
The main character of that PDF reminds me of you, Greylorn.

reply to post by 1Learner

A star for what seems to me to be a very insightful post. These are certainly questions the OP needs to have considered. The Christian bias in the formation of his own thought — which is evident despite his proclaimed rejection of orthodox religion — has prevented him from considering or understanding the possibility that personality or 'soul' is a collection of aggregates rather than a unified, conscious or in any way permanent entity.

Even a cursory study of Buddhist metaphysics would have shown him a very different way of looking at things.

dominicus

Originally posted by rival
Your claim that the body is physical and therefore anything
interacting with the body must be physical is only relevant if
we humans can perceive ALL that is physical. It's hubris to
assume that we can.

If there is a soul it is certainly an ethereal entity that exists outside
our meager understanding of science,

If we do discover the soul, or the essence of the soul, I expect God
(if he exists) will be right there waiting around the corner for us.

His first words will be, "...what took you so long?"

This is what im saying.

Anything interacting with the physical body, must by physical is a bunch of bullcrap with no scientific evidence.

For example, thoughts seem to happen within the body. By this very definition, thoughts must be physical, but they're not!!!!!!

Think of a rock, now put that thought in my hand so I can hold it, lol.

Come on op!!!!!!!!

Your comments on my OP indicate a complete lack of understanding. Clearly you did not take the trouble to review the three OPs and threads that preceded it, which is exactly what I'd expect of a religionist who reads religious tracts, but never actually reads much else.

Go outdoors. Open one hand. Hold it before you, open to the sky and carefully examine it for any sign of something physical that might exist within the space above your open palm. See anything? Smell, hear, or detect anything in the space above the palm of your hand? I'll wager not.

Yet, that space is full of physical stuff other than the molecules of air that you cannot detect. It is full of electromagnetic energy and magnetic fields. Can't see it, religionist? Place a small TV or radio in your hand and it will pick up the e/m fields that you cannot detect and are ignorant of. Put a portable stupid-phone in that hand, and you will find that it receives information through space, without wires. Move your stupid-phone to the other hand, or insert it into an orifice, and it will continue to receive information.

This information is everywhere. It is real, and it is physical. It is not "material."

I have tried on several occasions, on various threads, to explain the difference between "physical" and "material," but I cannot get individuals who are determined to remain ignorant to appreciate such differences. Please go study some 8th grade physics before replying. If you continue to post ignorant, religion-based comments, I will not reply.

BTW, thoughts are physical. If you ever have some, you might identify them as such.

1Learner

Originally posted by Greylorn

The soul must be minimally conscious and somewhat intelligent. At some level it must be self-aware. What would be the point of post-death existence in the absence of self-awareness?

If you will:
Suppose here that the soul & consciousness move from one body (in this case, let it be the human body) to another body after the process of death.
Of course, that body will be connected to the soul in its own "physical" way, and will be "material" to its own realm.
Suppose further that every single body available to the soul (let's say that there are just 7 of them) has a composition appropriate for the realm which the given body would be located in. The soul does not have to be that which is self aware or intelligent if that soul's retention of memory offers the consciousness of self to the given entity who has once learned enough of self-awareness.

On the subject of the evolution of the soul-bearing body, you may suppose that of the soul's bodies, at least 1 of them has no need for the soul; rather, such body needs only to evolve in the material world. That same body develops its material form, including the brain, so to have materialized its use of mind which at least would be intelligence accumulated from interaction with its planetary environment. As it continues evolution and becomes more intelligent, the mind & body entity may one day become, to a degree, conscious of self, and thus capable of housing a soul.

Originally posted by Greylorn
The only component of yourself that is relevant to a post-death scenario is your conscious mind. If the soul is to survive in a meaningful manner, it must be that mind, or the entity that contains the properties of mind.

Post-death:
The soul, having moved out of an unsuitable body and having moved into the proper body, enables the possibility for the [affected] mind, body, and spirit-entity to continue consciousness. The thoughts at post-death could be that concerning awareness of the bodily death and of the discovered state of being or location; not to mention, the post-death entity has access to its memory of life/lives.

If it is possible to briefly tell, may you answer me:
Why does the "beon" exist, and why is it in the human?

I welcome the responses attempting to offer, to those who have read this post, a sensible line of thought, as I know this supposition has no evidence behind it.
--
Off-topic, but I ask the OP:
Care to read this PDF and post into this thread concerning what you think about it?
The main character of that PDF reminds me of you, Greylorn.

When I opened your link I got a stupid effing cartoon, which I immediately deleted. Give me a break from your religious garbage, and please go away.

reply to post by Greylorn

Your comments on my OP indicate a complete lack of understanding. Clearly you did not take the trouble to review the three OPs and threads that preceded it,

Sure did scan through the other threads. Nothing new under the sun......

which is exactly what I'd expect of a religionist who reads religious tracts, but never actually reads much else.

Again, your egotism and big headedness is worn on your sleeve when you assume a person to be a "religionist", lol. You are hilarious fodder for maybe a comedy forum.

Go outdoors. Open one hand. Hold it before you, open to the sky and carefully examine it for any sign of something physical that might exist within the space above your open palm. See anything? Smell, hear, or detect anything in the space above the palm of your hand? I'll wager not.

See? YEs, space, clouds, sky, colors, planes, birds, bugs, etc
Smell? Yes, grass, flowers, fields, some fumes everytime a car passes.
Hear? Yes. I hear the wind across my ears, the planes in the sky, birds, bugs flying above me/past me.
Detect? YEs, everything I provided above. You lose the wager. Do you live is some chasm devoid of live and existence of things between your palm and the sky? Alien?

Yet, that space is full of physical stuff other than the molecules of air that you cannot detect. It is full of electromagnetic energy and magnetic fields. Can't see it, religionist? Place a small TV or radio in your hand and it will pick up the e/m fields that you cannot detect and are ignorant of.

HEy egotist. I've been aware since 8-11 years old that space is full of EM, radio waves, various fields, including things that science may have not found yet, could all be possible.

BTW, thoughts are physical. If you ever have some, you might identify them as such.

Please prove it than. Because its impossible to believe anything that's said by an egotistical psychopathic so-into-himself, he-thinks-he's-God syndrome symptomatic narcissist. Post some scientific links then.

Better yet, put a thought in my hand so I can feel it's physicality.

I swear, each generation is getting worse and worse with egotism.

reply to post by Greylorn



I was joking about using the term singularity. Second, I thought you said Beons existed forever or something. How are beons created? So you are 'one beon', that was created before or after you were born? And then the beon will die when your body dies? And how is this different then sciences ideas about a mind/beon?

reply to post by Greylorn


Before I leave, will you respond with a helpful comment/critique concerning the more relevant part of my post which I previously referred to as a supposition with no evidence behind it?

Astyanax
reply to post by 1Learner

 

A star for what seems to me to be a very insightful post. These are certainly questions the OP needs to have considered. The Christian bias in the formation of his own thought — which is evident despite his proclaimed rejection of orthodox religion — has prevented him from considering or understanding the possibility that personality or 'soul' is a collection of aggregates rather than a unified, conscious or in any way permanent entity.

Even a cursory study of Buddhist metaphysics would have shown him a very different way of looking at things.

As it turns out I have studied Buddhist metaphysics, beginning with Siddhartha Gautama's original (i.e. classical) version, several intermediate versions that were regarded as heresy in their day but that are now mistaken for correct, classical interpretations. I've also noted the modern Buddhist transformation, which is difficult to distinguish from Christianity and has become even more hypocritical than Christianity.

Your metaphysical notions have no relationship to Buddhism except whatever you make up. They are merely "New Age" religionist beliefs, derived from Mdm.Blavatsky's absurd teachings and the metaphysical nonsense channeled from departed but self-proclaimed dead and therefore enlightened souls such as Seth/Kryon (same nitwit).

Moreover, your introduction of your own metaphysical scheme is an attempt to hijack this thread. Kindly open your own thread if that is the kind of material you prefer to discuss.

reply to post by Greylorn

Your metaphysical notions have no relationship to Buddhism except whatever you make up.

My metaphysical notions? Do you mean this?

Originally posted by Astyanax
...the possibility that personality or 'soul' is a collection of aggregates rather than a unified, conscious or in any way permanent entity

That's not my thinking. Strange that you can't recognise its source, since you claim to have

studied Buddhist metaphysics, beginning with Siddhartha Gautama's original (i.e. classical) version, several intermediate versions that were regarded as heresy in their day but that are now mistaken for correct, classical interpretations.

Why, I know a bit about Buddhism, too. I received my early schooling in Buddhist thought from an aunt by marriage who was very scholarly and devout. She died last year, alas, or I would have brought her on to set you straight about the Buddhist metaphysics you claim to have studied but apparently cannot recognise.

They are merely "New Age" religionist beliefs, derived from Mdm.Blavatsky's absurd teachings and the metaphysical nonsense channeled from departed but self-proclaimed dead and therefore enlightened souls such as Seth/Kryon (same nitwit).

I have no religious beliefs. My opinions concerning Theosophy, Madame Blavatsky and the New Age mindset are a matter of record on Above Top Secret, for instance here.

Moreover, your introduction of your own metaphysical scheme is an attempt to hijack this thread.

I'm a materialist. I don't do metaphysics.

Kindly open your own thread if that is the kind of material you prefer to discuss.

And miss the amusement you're so generously providing here, Greylorn? Not a chance.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

I was joking about using the term singularity. Second, I thought you said Beons existed forever or something. How are beons created? So you are 'one beon', that was created before or after you were born? And then the beon will die when your body dies? And how is this different then sciences ideas about a mind/beon?

IF,
A major problem with our communications is simply, "a failure to communicate." While I appreciate your apparent curiosity, it would be facilitated if you paid more attention to the communication process, including the effective use of language.

Please realize that neither this comment nor prior criticisms are or were intended as insults. They are simply my best statements of what's so, devoid of niceties. I've learned nothing from the shmoos and liars on this planet, except how nice it feels to have my ego briefly massaged by shmoos and liars--- the mental version of having physiological components briefly attended to by prostitutes. I've learned best from those who were willing to tell me the truth. Not fun, but efficient.

Kindly keep these thoughts in mind throughout any further communications we might have. That will make it fun for both of us. The concepts I am trying to convey are simple, but because they differ from the norm, any attempts by your or other readers to fit them into your current beliefs by reinterpreting my words to suit your beliefs will only perpetuate your beliefs.

If perpetuating your beliefs is what you want, why not simply ignore ideas like mine?

I cannot have ever said that beon will live forever, because that is not my understanding. You are confusing my heretofore partially-explained beon concept with the Christian notion of soul.

It seems to me (but apparently to no one else) that if something has a beginning, it is likely to also have an end. This applies to religious theory as well-- the belief that God created the soul as an immortal being implies that God could not permanently terminate the soul, a notion that is logically absurd. This is part of why I do not accept any conventional God-concept.

"Beon" is an invented word that I use to describe the entity that is responsible for intelligence. I propose that beons are the byproducts of a natural event, on the grounds that I am one of them, and despite complaints to the contrary, I'm not impressed with myself. (Although like most of us, I have an occasional good moment.) Beons are badly flawed entities, struggling to make sense of themselves and the context in which they find themselves, and making this more difficult for themselves by accepting the first half-baked theory that comes their way and refusing to let go of it. I cannot imagine that entities capable of creating our universe and biological life would have created such stupid things as beons (or souls). That would be like a Ferrari engineer recreating a Radio Flyer with octagonal wheels and balsa-wood bearings.

Some of your questions about beons are good, but were I to try to answer them here I'd be hijacking this thread, and getting ahead of things. I cannot answer your questions without first providing some background. Consider this small shift in your way of looking at things...

The word "created" is commonly used in the context of an intelligent entity doing the creating. In such a context beon is not created.

Religions run into a problem whenever someone asks, where did God, their ultimate creator come from? If they say he was created, the obvious question is, who created Him? Etc. So they declare that God always existed, and subject themselves to the question, "Does God change?" They have dealt with that by inventing a concept of an infinitely knowledgeable entity who cannot think.

Beon Theory avoids this conundrum by proposing that beons had a natural origin, and after coming into existence possessed neither intelligence nor consciousness. They are the most primitive entities imaginable, and after their origin were irreducibly simple. But it is really premature to try to explain this without better background, so be patient.

Astyanax
reply to post by Greylorn

 

And how would you know?

That you haven't studied enough physics? Easy. I have.

How nice for you. And how much physics is "enough?" Have you studied enough to explain why gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial mass? Have you studied enough to explain the double-slit experiment? Do you have an explanation for dark energy? Mine is already published, but ignored because the perfessers who fed you your physics rations are equally dogmatic and determined to protect their beliefs.

Astyanax
Anyone who theorises a force carrier for a force that shows no signs of existing, thinks this force carrier needn't be a particle, thinks waves and particles can be distinguished from one another by simply invoking the word 'classical' (or indeed, in any other way), imagines that the interaction of his impossible particle with other particles can be consumnated without the expenditure of energy or without raising the local temperature — and, above all, anyone who imagines that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be repealed, temporarily or permanently, in any shape or form — is clearly a complete ignoramus when it comes to the subject of physics.

My failings are indeed severe, but at least I know how to spell "consummated."

You've made up so many false complaints about my ideas that there is no point in trying to address them, because you have no idea what I actually wrote. It appears that I've succeeded in writing just enough to confuse another Atheist and good Democrat who, true to his way of being, will freely misrepresent disagreeable ideas to support his own beliefs.

BTW the latter comment also applies to most religionists and good Republicans, who do not appear to be participating in this thread. Can't say that I miss them.

Can't you find a more sophisticated personal insult than "ignoramus?" Since I've written one more book about physics than you have, that you appear either unable to afford to purchase, or incapable of understanding, or both-- don't I deserve an insult that somehow demonstrates your qualifications to deliver it?

Astyanax
What is the wavefunction of a beon? Can it be described as a sum over histories? What happens to all the other potential soul-states when the wavefunction collapses? Mass extermination?

Where do you come up with this goofy crap from? Beons have no mass (oh-- do you believe the "soul-weighing" experiments you've learned about from oddball TV channels?). Beons are not quantized either, so neither the Planck constant nor mass applies to them, and therefore a Schrodinger-like wave function would be inapplicable.

I have no idea what mathematical formalism might work as a suitable description for a beon. One of my reasons for writing, and for putting up with ignorant people who are determined to stay that way, is to connect with someone with enough curiosity, lack of personal bias, and mathematical expertise to devise such a formalism. (i.e. I'm looking for my Minkowski.)

Astyanax
Maxwell's Demon cannot exist in practice (or even, it seems, in theory) — and if it did, it would have to operate by erasing information. A pretty odd property for a carrier of memories.

Thanks for the article. It is interesting, and I will save it for future reference. And further study. Discussing it here would be off topic.

Moreover, this is the sort of topic best discussed with someone who understands my ideas well enough to be curious about them and their implications. For the time being that requires someone who has read my darned book, because here I'm still trying to introduce its simplest ideas. (Might as well give my cats 20 bucks and expect them to buy themselves some kibbles.) Fortunately, I've found a few genuinely curious agnostics and am having these discussions elsewhere.

If you actually perused the article, perhaps you noticed the material that began with, "To protect the second law (as a religionist might protect his dogma-- my insertion), physicists have proposed various reasons the demon cannot function as Maxwell described. Surprisingly, nearly all these proposals have been flawed."

Astyanax
No physics whatsoever is evident in a single one of your posts to date.

That is correct. If I began with physics or tried to introduce it here, my threads would have even fewer readers. (I would happily have even one fewer reader. Guess who?)

I've attempted to present my divergent views on physics elsewhere, in physics forums, and have not been allowed. Where I did get an opportunity, my threads were assaulted by ignorant "moderators" who used their bully pulpit much like BO uses his. I got tired of it. The physics-followers of today, a gang of unimaginative people with lots of brain capacity but zero imagination, are functionally identical to the Church's Cardinals in Galileo's day.

Astyanax
In spite of your posturing, you have nothing more to offer than a common crank. One, I am sorry to say, with a particularly repellent attitude and obnoxious manners.

You are both mistaken and sorrily hypocritical. I am an uncommon crank, and we all know that you are about as sorry for your statement as is B.O. for his lies.

My attitude is deliberately constructed to repel arrogant and unimaginative intellectuals. Obviously it needs some polishing.

My manners are intended to reflect the manners of those with whom I'm dealing.

Astyanax
The dance is over, old boy, and you've failed the audition.

It's only over for you. Others with thoughtful minds and genuine curiosity are already on the floor.

All of your threads end in the same manner.....

'You're all wrong and stupid!'

Why do you think that is?

reply to post by Greylorn

Have you studied enough physics to explain why gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial mass? Have you studied enough to explain the double-slit experiment? Do you have an explanation for dark energy?

No, I haven't. Anyone who says they have is either a crackpot or a barefaced liar.

[My explanation of dark energy] is already published,

See above.

...but ignored because the perfessers who fed you your physics rations are equally dogmatic and determined to protect their beliefs.

No, Greylorn. They ignore you because you are talking rot.

Originally posted (on another thread) by Greylorn
Following the First Law, dark energy has always existed. It originally existed in a completely amorphous, unstructured form, defining a "space" of its own. There was no differentiation within that space, neither in terms of distance nor time. Its temperature was at absolute zero. It did not change. In other words, the original state of dark energy was irreducibly simple.

(Physicists tried to detect it (as the aether) around the end of the 18th century, but failed. They arrogantly decided that because they could not detect it, it did not exist, and abandoned the search.)

Notice that like the "physical singularity" that allegedly preceded he Big Bang, the original dark-energy space contained all the energy in our universe, and had the potential to become the structured forms that now comprise our universe. However, unlike the singularity, the dark-energy space is mathematically definable and physically verifiable, as science has recently shown.

You can hardly expect a 'perfesser' of physics to take seriously someone who claims that the aether is the same thing as dark energy, and makes definite statements about the conditions that prevailed antecedent to the Big Bang!

I've attempted to present my divergent views on physics elsewhere, in physics forums, and have not been allowed. Where I did get an opportunity, my threads were assaulted by ignorant "moderators" who used their bully pulpit much like BO uses his.

I don't suppose you'd care to provide a link, would you?

You've made up so many false complaints about my ideas that there is no point in trying to address them, because you have no idea what I actually wrote.

Or perhaps because you don't know enough physics to see how my comments apply. That was probably the trouble you had with the 'perfessers' you approached — and, come to think of it, the moderators on that physics forum, too.

Anyway, this is nothing to the point. I went looking for your book. Digital Universe — Analog Soul from Three Knolls Publishing, a vanity publisher in Tucson, Arizona. I found it on Amazon, along with three five-star 'reader reviews' under three different pseudonyms, all in the exact style of your posts on Above Top Secret.

This makes a difference. I am, as it happens, a writer by profession. Of course, I would never stoop so low as to publish my writing at my own expense, far less provide glowing reviews of my own work under false names on a commercial website. But then, I've been lucky (then again, so have you, it seems). At any rate, it strikes me that I am poking fun at someone who is, after all, a fellow-writer. It is true that you deserve a proper kicking for your arrogance, your discourtesy and your offensive posturing — but the pathos of your sad little struggle to gain public recognition from an indifferent world speaks to me as a fellow-writer. You may be a nasty fellow with delusions of grandeur and no manners, but you're human all the same, and unlikely as it seems, you probably have feelings, too. Go in peace, and make what you can of your membership here while you have it.

Astyanax
reply to post by Greylorn

 

Greylorn wrote: "Have you studied enough physics to explain why gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial mass? Have you studied enough to explain the double-slit experiment? Do you have an explanation for dark energy?"

No, I haven't. Anyone who says they have is either a crackpot or a barefaced liar.

How thoughtful of you to offer me a choice of insults. Ordinary jerks would have been more selective. Perhaps your beneficence is the consequence of a larger than normal insult vocabulary. It is my good fortune to be in correspondence with such an educated and erudite individual.

Prezbo369
All of your threads end in the same manner.....

'You're all wrong and stupid!'

Why do you think that is?

None of my threads have ended, so they cannot have ended as you describe.

If you cannot tell the difference between threads and posts, then perhaps you should apply your "wrong and stupid" complaint where it best seems to fit.

Astyanax
reply to post by Greylorn

 

I've attempted to present my divergent views on physics elsewhere, in physics forums, and have not been allowed. Where I did get an opportunity, my threads were assaulted by ignorant "moderators" who used their bully pulpit much like BO uses his.

I don't suppose you'd care to provide a link, would you?

The rules for most forums I've read exclude the posting of links to competing forums. I've read so many sets of forum rules that I cannot recall if that one applies to ATS, but because it is a fair and sensible rule, I will follow it.