do you pray before you fly?

[asechrest]

LSD.....

I once knew a guy who had found Jesus. He always preached to me. He told me about the night he found religion, when Jesus came to him in a moment of enlightenment and showed him the error of his ways.

The bad acid trip he was experiencing that night apparently had nothing to do with it.

 

[Henning]

There you go, don't like the message, attack the messenger. It's all good, I never thought mankind was particularly worth saving anyway, I just do what I'm supposed to until I die.

 

[narchee]

Please, someone close by, please give Henning a hug. He needs one DESPERATELY it appears!

 

[overdrive148]

You still didn't acknowledge any of this:

I'm back from my tour, it said everything he stated is essentially wrong. Now which of us is "correct"? And who can say?

On top of that, how do you know which God you went on this tour with?

 

[asechrest]

There you go, don't like the message, attack the messenger. It's all good, I never thought mankind was particularly worth saving anyway, I just do what I'm supposed to until I die.

Not attacking you. His comment just brought that to mind. I have no problem with your faith or your journey to it, I just don't particularly follow what you describe and why it doesn't mesh with what we know of the world.

 

[Henning]

You still didn't acknowledge any of this:

Why should I acknowledge it?

Whether there is "one God" is unknown, and probably unlikely, however there is one intelligence that we refer to as God at the core of our organism we call the multiverse. How many multiverses exist is something I have no perception towards.

 

[bullwinkle]

With all due respect, this is another old canard. It comes from a basic misunderstanding (and misapplication) of the second law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law stipulates a closed system. Biological systems receive a continuous new supply of energy from the sun, i.e. they are not closed systems.

Rocks receive the same solar radiation, yet they don't build in complexity.

 

[cowman]

 

[Henning]

Not attacking you. His comment just brought that to mind. I have no problem with your faith or your journey to it, I just don't particularly follow what you describe and why it doesn't mesh with what we know of the world.

But it does mesh, actually, it allows you to look at all the discoveries and experiment results of physics over the last century and a half that failed to prove a chaotic creation by providing anomalies that were unanswerable, and align all the holes to produce a balanced working model of the universe.

 

[Dav8or]

There you go, don't like the message, attack the messenger. It's all good, I never thought mankind was particularly worth saving anyway, I just do what I'm supposed to until I die.

You are not the messenger and I'll tell you why-

• A messenger would be trying to tell as many people as possible, not just a bunch old dudes on an internet pilot forum.
• A messenger would be writing all this crap down in a coherent form and then publishing in a format that could be digested by the masses.
• A messenger would be making the the best use possible of the internet to spread the word. That means YouTube videos, Face Book and Twitter, not just POA to get the word out.
• A messenger would devote their life to this work.

You are an internet junkie with a big imagination, that has read a lot of SiFi and popular science journals, half understood them and like to troll on pilot's forums. That's about the size of it. However, you are strangely entertaining, like some crazy old half uncle living in a shack on a swamp somewhere telling tales.

 

[Henning]

You are not the messenger and I'll tell you why-

• A messenger would be trying to tell as many people as possible, not just a bunch old dudes on an internet pilot forum.
• A messenger would be writing all this crap down in a coherent form and then publishing in a format that could be digested by the masses.
• A messenger would be making the the best use possible of the internet to spread the word. That means YouTube videos, Face Book and Twitter, not just POA to get the word out.
• A messenger would devote their life to this work.

You are an internet junkie with a big imagination, that has read a lot of SiFi and popular science journals, half understood them and like to troll on pilot's forums. That's about the size of it. However, you are strangely entertaining, like some crazy old half uncle living in a shack on a swamp somewhere telling tales.

Please, do you think I'm in DC right now because I like the place? You have no ****ing clue as to what I'm doing or what I have done. Social Media has proven a complete waste of time, more so than this hole.

Nobody is really concerned about saving mankind or their children even. If there isn't a clear route to profit as they know it, they don't want to engender the thought. Nobody wants to risk what they know for the unknown.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

You are not the messenger and I'll tell you why-

• A messenger would be trying to tell as many people as possible, not just a bunch old dudes on an internet pilot forum.
• A messenger would be writing all this crap down in a coherent form and then publishing in a format that could be digested by the masses.
• A messenger would be making the the best use possible of the internet to spread the word. That means YouTube videos, Face Book and Twitter, not just POA to get the word out.
• A messenger would devote their life to this work.

You are an internet junkie with a big imagination, that has read a lot of SiFi and popular science journals, half understood them and like to troll on pilot's forums. That's about the size of it. However, you are strangely entertaining, like some crazy old half uncle living in a shack on a swamp somewhere telling tales.

Oh, no....make it stop.

 

[overdrive148]

Please, do you think I'm in DC right now because I like the place? You have no ****ing clue as to what I'm doing or what I have done. Social Media has proven a complete waste of time, more so than this hole.

Nobody is really concerned about saving mankind or their children even. If there isn't a clear route to profit as they know it, they don't want to engender the thought. Nobody wants to risk what they know for the unknown.

Dav8or from out of nowhere! TKO!

 

[Dav8or]

Oh, no....make it stop.

Here is a picture of Captain Henning's meditation group reaching a different dimension.

 

[Henning]

Afraid?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

cue the banjo music.....

 

[overdrive148]

Afraid?

I'll ask again for some solid evidence proving anything you said is true. Verifiable, documentable, reproducable evidence

"I heard it from dark matter in the universe" isn't any of those things.

 

[narchee]

I'll ask again for some solid evidence proving anything you said is true. Verifiable, documentable, reproducable evidence

"I heard it from dark matter in the universe" isn't any of those things.

Don't hold your breath.. This is more along the lines of how Henning does his "research"

 

[Henning]

I'll ask again for some solid evidence proving anything you said is true. Verifiable, documentable, reproducable evidence

"I heard it from dark matter in the universe" isn't any of those things.

There is no evidence possible at this point, the machinery to measure does not exist, however CERN might get there. The greatest evidence is the utter failure scientific experiments to prove a chaotic origin, or to fill the holes and anomalies that leave all the equations of the last century and a half unbalanced, incomplete, and relying on figures with no explanation, like 'infinity', 'singularity', 'dark matter', & 'dark energy' which we accept "on faith" because "they have to exist", we won't even go into 'quantum entanglements' and 'Bohr's observation theory". At this point there is little to differentiate quantum and relativistic physics and religion because all revolve around 'faith' to draw their conclusions, and both are only partially correct because neither will consider the other's point of view.

 

[dBrad]

Before every flight.

 

[ETres]

I'd never be successful at meditation because I can't sit in those positions for more a minute or two (bad back and creaky knees). If I laid down, then I'd surely go to sleep. If I remained standing, I wouldn't be able to concentrate, plus I have sore feet.

That means all I have left is prayer, but I'm not a religious person. I guess I shall remain forever unenlightened.

 

[overdrive148]

In order...

There is no evidence possible at this point, the machinery to measure does not exist.

What would a machine need to do or measure to be able to detect God?

The greatest evidence is the utter failure scientific experiments to prove a chaotic origin, or to fill the holes and anomalies that leave all the equations of the last century and a half unbalanced, incomplete, and relying on figures with no explanation, like 'infinity', 'singularity', 'dark matter', & 'dark energy' which we accept "on faith" because "they have to exist"

Science has filled a LOT of holes over more than just the last 100 years, what rock have you been living under?

While we don't know what dark matter or energy is for sure, we do know it's out there. How? The bible doesn't mention dark matter, what found its existence? Science. And if that's the case, how is that an utter failure?

Also you'd think that an omniscient being would leave a calling card if it was possible to 'communicate' with it through dark matter or at least mention its importance. That, or you just broke in, or are the 'chosen one' because AFAIK none of us can pick up on dark matter waves and find out everything on the multiverse.

Maybe you should do your part by communicating God's will and what he wants us to do. Since humanity is obviously failing and about to go extinct, it's your job as the one talking to him to save humanity right? And if you don't do your part, you're just as bad as the rest of humanity. Being able to save everything but choosing not to.

At this point there is little to differentiate quantum and relativistic physics and religion because all revolve around 'faith' to draw their conclusions, and both are only partially correct because neither will consider the other's point of view.

The scientific method is about as far as you can possibly get from relying on faith to draw conclusions. If you didn't know, those steps are roughly:

Form a question
Develop a hypothesis
Predict what will happen
Do an experiment
Analyze the findings
(report the findings)

What part of that process relies on faith? What is your definition of faith? To me it sounds like relying blindly. Science is the process of learning and searching and expanding knowledge, looking into why things are they way they are. Through this method we have advanced mankind and society.

I would absolutely love to see your response to each of these points.

 

[write-stuff]

What would a machine need to do or measure to be able to detect God?

First question would be which "God"? Yahweh, Zeus, Xenu, Shiva, Apollo, Ra, Odin... You'd have to define what you were looking for.

 

[Henning]

In order...
you need a machine to detect Dark Energy and Dark Matter, that is the realm of "God"

What would a machine need to do or measure to be able to detect God?


Science has filled a LOT of holes over more than just the last 100 years, what rock have you been living under?

Ask any physicist what 'the singularity' is, what 'infinity' is , what Dark energy or Matter are, or how quantum entanglements work. The answer is "No Clue".

While we don't know what dark matter or energy is for sure, we do know it's out there. How? The bible doesn't mention dark matter, what found its existence? Science. And if that's the case, how is that an utter failure?

Correct, we know it must exist due to observation for Dark Matter, and because otherwise the equations that make things work to explain the expansion of the universe require it for Dark Energy

Also you'd think that an omniscient being would leave a calling card if it was possible to 'communicate' with it through dark matter or at least mention its importance. That, or you just broke in, or are the 'chosen one' because AFAIK none of us can pick up on dark matter waves and find out everything on the multiverse.

Sentient life produces Dark Energy through thought, it is the elusive "spark of life", Dark Matter is unexcited, uninformed quanta floating in space that Darl Energy excites into existence, and provides it the information that tells it how to order and become matter. The byproduct of this process is Gravity.
Maybe you should do your part by communicating God's will and what he wants us to do. Since humanity is obviously failing and about to go extinct, it's your job as the one talking to him to save humanity right? And if you don't do your part, you're just as bad as the rest of humanity. Being able to save everything but choosing not to.

That is what I am trying to do right now, not just here,mouth with people who can actually do something positive with the information.

The scientific method is about as far as you can possibly get from relying on faith to draw conclusions. If you didn't know, those steps are roughly:

Form a question
Develop a hypothesis
Predict what will happen
Do an experiment
Analyze the findings
(report the findings)

What part of that process relies on faith? What is your definition of faith? To me it sounds like relying blindly. Science is the process of learning and searching and expanding knowledge, looking into why things are they way they are. Through this method we have advanced mankind and society.

We have advanced technology, we use that technology to kill each other. We have not used it to advance mankind in the slightest.

I would absolutely love to see your response to each of these points.

Done. We were inspired to science because religion was corrupted. Unfortunately, same thing happened to science. Both were meant to explain the nature of the universe and the purpose of our existence so we would understand that we are all one. Both have been traded in for money.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

nice....

Don't hold your breath.. This is more along the lines of how Henning does his "research"

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted by write-stuff View Post
With all due respect, this is another old canard. It comes from a basic misunderstanding (and misapplication) of the second law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law stipulates a closed system. Biological systems receive a continuous new supply of energy from the sun, i.e. they are not closed systems.

Rocks receive the same solar radiation, yet they don't build in complexity.

Just reposting this exchange since it was not addressed. :wink2:

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Henning, given your lack of understanding of the sciences, I wouldn't use that as the basis of explaining your faith.

Ask any physicist what 'the singularity' is, what 'infinity' is , what Dark energy or Matter are, or how quantum entanglements work. The answer is "No Clue".

There are 4 accepted models for describing dark matter or dark energy. The math behind current theories predicts these items to exist, just as conservation of mass/energy predicted the neutrino, which was difficult to detect. These things will be discovered in time, or will point to the flaws in our current models that causes us to create new models. Around the turn of the last century, there were also things in physics that didn't make sense. One example was black body radiation. The theories at the times isn't adequately fit the data until Plank empirically made an equation which met the limits of both the Rayeigh-Jeans law and the Wein approximation; no one was searching for a quantum explanation of energy, but it fell out of the math that matched how a black body behaved. Quantum theory came later. My point here is that either our models are flawed (again), or we'll figure out what dark matter and energy are. I really wouldn't ascribe to any deity a lack of understanding of our universe.

Infinity? We invented it, it is a concept describing something without limits.
Singularity is merely a point at which a mathematical function takes an infinite value. A child just leaning division runs into this with the function 1/x, at the point where x=0

So, some of your premises are flawed, I just described some some of the concepts that you said a physicist would say "no clue"

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Correct, we know it must exist due to observation for Dark Matter, and because otherwise the equations that make things work to explain the expansion of the universe require it for Dark Energy

To the best of my knowledge, dark matter or energy haven't been observed. I would welcome a citation though.

We see effects that we ascribe to dark matter and dark energy though.

 

[Henning]

To the best of my knowledge, dark matter or energy haven't been observed. I would welcome a citation though.

We see effects that we ascribe to dark matter and dark energy though.

The effects of lensing of Dark Matter have been observed, that's why the term exists, if not it wouldn't even be a concept.

 

[MAKG1]

Just reposting this exchange since it was not addressed. :wink2:

That's 'cause the question doesn't make any sense, and starts from a wrong premise.

Rocks can show order (crystals) or chaos (glasses) or anything in between.

Polymers come with all kinds of complex structures.

Asteroids are rocks, and some have been observed with spontaneously generated amino acids, that don't appear on earth. An active area of astronomical research is in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are generated spontaneously in cool environments.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The effects of lensing of Dark Matter have been observed, that's why the term exists, if not it wouldn't even be a concept.

But dark matter itself hasn't been observed, which is what you stated. We infer its existence from the gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation( the lensing you mention), and large scale structure of the universe.

The current candidates for dark matter are various types of subatomic particles ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002126 ). The term exists because we see an effect caused by something. We don't see it, can't observe it as yet, don't know what it is, so we just give the name "dark" to it. No need to go all supernatural.

Both Richard Bach and Carl Sagan have written about combining faith and science. My most recent reading by Stephan Hawking indicated he saw no need for a creator.

So if you do ask a physicist about the items you mentioned, you would get a reasoned answered.

 

[overdrive148]

you need a machine to detect Dark Energy and Dark Matter, that is the realm of "God"

How do you know it is the realm of god? Compared to space dust, clouds on earth, air... What makes you sure it is dark matter you are 'meditating' to? (The brain is the most important organ...says the brain)

Ask any physicist what 'the singularity' is, what 'infinity' is , what Dark energy or Matter are, or how quantum entanglements work. The answer is "No Clue".

Jack got this one.

Correct, we know it must exist due to observation for Dark Matter, and because otherwise the equations that make things work to explain the expansion of the universe require it for Dark Energy

So in other words, science is not an utter failure at helping understand the unknown or the universe. Filling holes and what not.

Sentient life produces Dark Energy through thought, it is the elusive "spark of life", Dark Matter is unexcited, uninformed quanta floating in space that Darl Energy excites into existence, and provides it the information that tells it how to order and become matter. The byproduct of this process is Gravity.

If science hasn't 100% nailed down what dark energy or matter are exactly, how do you know what it is with such certainty? How does dark energy tell dark matter to exist and exactly how does gravity become a product of this. And again, how do you know this for a fact?

We have advanced technology, we use that technology to kill each other. We have not used it to advance mankind in the slightest.

Don't try to kill me with my internet connection, or radio, or phone. Or TV or computer. Taser? Vaccinations. Definitely penicillin. You can't tell me that all of the technology we have developed in all of history has done nothing but kill.

We went to space, we have increased longevity, we have predicted natural disasters and built to withstand them, crossed the globe hours and days instead of years. Created aircraft. And you can't be serious that aircraft are mostly used to kill other people.

 

[write-stuff]

Just reposting this exchange since it was not addressed. :wink2:

Sorry, didn't see it. You replied that rocks receive the same solar radiation and don't build in complexity.

First of all, that's a complete straw man and has nothing to do with my statement about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Second, based on how broadly you define "rocks", actually, they do sometimes build in complexity or order (minerals form and become more crystalline over time), but again, that is irrelevant to our previous exchange about the 2nd law and biological systems.

 

[bullwinkle]

Sorry, didn't see it. You replied that rocks receive the same solar radiation and don't build in complexity.

First of all, that's a complete straw man and has nothing to do with my statement about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Second, based on how broadly you define "rocks", actually, they do sometimes build in complexity or order (minerals form and become more crystalline over time), but again, that is irrelevant to our previous exchange about the 2nd law and biological systems.

It's not a straw man. I said biological systems are the only system in nature that increase in complexity, seemingly in violation of the principle of entropy.

Your counterpoint was that that that statement is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of thermodynamics -- that biological systems are open systems receiving a continuous influx in solar energy.

I now state that other systems receive the same influx of solar energy, yet do NOT increase in complexity over time. That is not a straw man in any way, it's a valid response to your point.

I think you are confusing "more energetic" with "more complex". A rock can heat due to radiation, its molecules vibrating faster until it changes state to a liquid or a gas. That is NOT increased complexity, it's state change.

Evolution tells us very complex organisms like humans evolved from tiny single-celled organisms. How does this happen? It happens in no other natural system. Other systems change states, but do not actually more complex in a way that builds on past experience and incorporates past states of being.

BTW, I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen. I'm saying it's a unique process that works against entropy, and no other process we have observed operates the same way. It's why we're so fascinated by life and why NASA is so interested in finding it elsewhere.

 

[write-stuff]

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. Ok, so what do you mean when you say "in violation of the principle of entropy" with reference to biological systems?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

It's not a straw man. I said biological systems are the only system in nature that increase in complexity, seemingly in violation of the principle of entropy.

Your counterpoint was that that that statement is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of thermodynamics -- that biological systems are open systems receiving a continuous influx in solar energy.

I now state that other systems receive the same influx of solar energy, yet do NOT increase in complexity over time. That is not a straw man in any way, it's a valid response to your point.

I think you are confusing "more energetic" with "more complex". A rock can heat due to radiation, its molecules vibrating faster until it changes state to a liquid or a gas. That is NOT increased complexity, it's state change.

Evolution tells us very complex organisms like humans evolved from tiny single-celled organisms. How does this happen? It happens in no other natural system. Other systems change states, but do not actually more complex in a way that builds on past experience and incorporates past states of being.

BTW, I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen. I'm saying it's a unique process that works against entropy, and no other process we have observed operates the same way. It's why we're so fascinated by life and why NASA is so interested in finding it elsewhere.

Remember, to the best of our knowledge, there was no life here, only rocks, water, and gases ( I'll call lava liquid rocks). Could one that say the the non- biological systems have increased in complexity during that time? It may still be happening, although the existing living organisms may well be eating up those molecules that could potentially self-assemble.

 

[MAKG1]

Remember, to the best of our knowledge, there was no life here, only rocks, water, and gases ( I'll call lava liquid rocks). Could one that say the the non- biological systems have increased in complexity during that time? It may still be happening, although the existing living organisms may well be eating up those molecules that could potentially self-assemble.

Any self assembling system will increase in complexity unless disrupted or limited, using your apparent (and extremely vague) definition of complexity.

You might be surprised just how complex the Sun is if you look closer than the "big yellow ball." And it doesn't even have rocks, just gasses (ionized and otherwise).

You seem to be taking a premise and trying to pick facts to fit it. Life is much more interesting when it works the other way around. Complexity is all around us, and much of it is not life.

 

[asechrest]

It's not a straw man. I said biological systems are the only system in nature that increase in complexity, seemingly in violation of the principle of entropy.

Your counterpoint was that that that statement is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of thermodynamics -- that biological systems are open systems receiving a continuous influx in solar energy.

I now state that other systems receive the same influx of solar energy, yet do NOT increase in complexity over time. That is not a straw man in any way, it's a valid response to your point.

I think you are confusing "more energetic" with "more complex". A rock can heat due to radiation, its molecules vibrating faster until it changes state to a liquid or a gas. That is NOT increased complexity, it's state change.

Evolution tells us very complex organisms like humans evolved from tiny single-celled organisms. How does this happen? It happens in no other natural system. Other systems change states, but do not actually more complex in a way that builds on past experience and incorporates past states of being.

BTW, I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen. I'm saying it's a unique process that works against entropy, and no other process we have observed operates the same way. It's why we're so fascinated by life and why NASA is so interested in finding it elsewhere.

The point was that the Second Law does not prevent local decreases in entropy, nor does it require a component of an open system to do so. So the fact that the entropy of a rock may do one thing, while something else does another, does not seem to support your argument.

Local decreases is entropy happen all the time and all around us. Life is not unique in this respect.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Any self assembling system will increase in complexity unless disrupted or limited, using your apparent (and extremely vague) definition of complexity.

Usually up to some point, but granted.

You might be surprised just how complex the Sun is if you look closer than the "big yellow ball." And it doesn't even have rocks, just gasses (ionized and otherwise).

Nope, I'm not surprised at all. Peoples are still learning about the sun.

You seem to be taking a premise and trying to pick facts to fit it. Life is much more interesting when it works the other way around. Complexity is all around us, and much of it is not life.

I agree that there is a lot of complexity. I'm not trying to pick facts....
If life started on earth, it started from lifeless matter (water, rocks, and gases), and that was the only point I was trying to make, albeit, probably poorly.

If it started elsewhere and was transported to earth somehow, I have no issues with that, but it just moves the origin elsewhere, still starting from lifeless matter to the best of our current theories.

We don't have any evidence as yet (and maybe never) that dark energy is/was "the spark of life" as proposed by another poster.

 

[bullwinkle]

The point was that the Second Law does not prevent local decreases in entropy, nor does it require a component of an open system to do so. So the fact that the entropy of a rock may do one thing, while something else does another, does not seem to support your argument.

Local decreases is entropy happen all the time and all around us. Life is not unique in this respect.

We are not talking about decreases in entropy, we are talking increases in organizational complexity. That's my point. Rocks change state. But they don't become better adapted to their environment, become more intelligent, or gain other traits that they did not already possess.

A rock cannot gain traits that it didn't already possess. Human beings or any other animal can develop a trait they never before possessed, such as blue eyes, problem solving intelligence, an extra chromosome, or the ability to metabolize something in their environment that was formerly toxic. You don't see that from non-biological systems.

Adaptation is a uniquely biological function. But again...WHY?