In essence Arne, like your crusading friend, you are nothing but star dust, and unto star dust you shall return.
The truth hurts, even for nutty fundies. Yep, sciforum's fifth ToE everyone!!!! Oh heaven's to Betsy, we have a real live one here, without any doubt! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's why you are only posting in Philosophy and Alternative fringe sections. Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know: Bertrand Russell:
Worth noting that the most enthusiastic of our ToE claimants, are the ones that spend the most time on the forum...early morning, all day and half the night......and then claim they have some scientific paper ready for publication. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [nudge, nudge, wink, wink] Poor little baby Jesus!
I didn't say ready for publication, ready for submission for review; they will decide if its ready for publication Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Submission, publication or whatever, as usual, you have missed the obvious point, that railroads you and all the others claiming to have a ToE.
Yes now that scully has run up the Jolly Roger by going on about the Philospher's Stone, living to Old Testament ages and so on, we can see what the problem is. We correctly sniffed something bogus, at the start of the thread, but it turns out the initial diagnosis, viz. it was Protestant extremism attempting to wrap itself in the mantle of science by means of Newton, was wrong. It is in fact a crank theory, weaving alchemy, biblical prophecy and crank science into a tissue of utter ballocks. I realise you may find this rude of me, but I'm afraid there is no obligation to treat crackpots seriously. We have every right to dismiss them quickly and move on, so as not to get interminably bogged down in arguing at enormous length, on their own pet subject, with people who are not rational.
I don't understand deep physics or advanced cosmology very well, it's true. However, I am not convinced. This all still smacks of you just saying ,'No, no, no! I've always been told that's impossible' and considering no further. Besides your visceral objections to The Bible and alchemy, would you care to explain just why Sscully's ToE may not be? (All that I object to, and find rude, is that those in disagreement with sscully, and my defense of approaching his theories with an open mind, resort to name calling and accusations of disingenuity. Not you, PB, but some other contributors to this thread are so crabbed and 'full-of-it' themselves, existing for no other reason but to impress us with their (pseudo)intellectualism. They tend to dislike everyone else for not being as smart as they suppose they themselves are. They are so used to being poseurs that they cannot conceive of anyone being nothing more than what they seem. They see hidden agendas where none exists - even if an OP did have a hidden agenda, wouldn't it be better for our own mental well being if we just accepted such people as they want to appear and not assume the worse about them?)
Anyone who talks about manipulating matter with their mind immediately goes into the whacko bin. (I don't care how many times Peter Pan tells me I can fly if I just believe - experience tells me otherwise.)
Actually, in real life, they detected a not very well hidden agenda where it did exist. They were right, and you were wrong. Why were you so harshly and disparagingly wrong? (speaking of prejudice and bigotry and unwarranted presumption) No. There are too many of those people out there, and too little bandwidth in here. Accepting such people as they attempt to present themselves underestimates their ability to deceive and abuse other people, and the power of social respect to enable their deceptions and abuses of other people. And it overestimates their good will. It's irresponsible to give them a platform of respect after detection. And Isaac Newton accomplished great scientific things in the face of serious personal afflictions and public pressures: his memory and reputation should not be used as tools like that, and a science forum in particular should not enable that disgrace.
Arne, someone who claims he has a theory of everything that overturns the whole of physics needs (a) strong credentials and (b) strong evidence, in the form of observations his theory can explain but that current theory does not. Scully offers nothing in this respect and, even worse, introduces manifestly non-scientific idea about alchemy and biblical prophecy, thus fatally undermining his credentials. His notions can be dismissed without further consideration, I'm afraid. (P.S. Re your other remarks, I am personally very sympathetic to religious belief, having been brought up Catholic and retaining great affection and respect for the church, even if I am now rather sceptical about the literal truth of it all. So my attitude to religion plays no part on my judgment of scully.)
Thanks for explaining that. I went back two pages on this thread and can't see any actual objections to sscully's ideas, just a lot of name-calling. I just don't see why we can't all of us always be civil here. I admit that I sometimes get mean myself, we are all only human and so many members deliberately try to anger others. When someone does such: I would suggest writing a really all-out bitchy reply to any one you disagree with (or who is deliberately trying to get your goat), reading it over, even looking at the preview, and then deleting the post without sending it. Yes, I think I will try hard to do that myself from now on. The first bit of The Desiderata comes to mind: Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself... ...You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.
You obviously haven't read the first Harry Potter book. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So, Steve, is it true what they say Are you a fundamentalist?
This 18th century writing's spin on Daniel seems entirely fanciful to me. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with whatever the Hebrew authors' original intentions were when Daniel was first written. For one thing, this imaginative modern interpretation is hugely anachronistic. By chapter five, the author is already talking about the barbarian kingdoms that replaced the Roman empire in the west, events that took place many centuries after Daniel was written. I'm not a Jew, Christian or Muslim, so Biblical scholarship isn't of very much interest to me. But my impression is that Daniel dates from the Hellenistic period. That's certainly before the time of Christ, and something like 700 years before the barbarian kingdoms. So just by common sense, the authors of Daniel didn't know about these later barbarian kingdoms and couldn't have been talking about them. Obviously later readers are free to use the early imagery as metaphors for anything that they like. Given that ancient imagery's highly cryptic nature, it isn't particularly difficult to find imaginative parallels to any manner of things. Sure, if you want to believe that it's all miraculous, then you can believe anything you like. The question then is: why should other people join you in believing it? You wrote up above that you don't think that it's arguable that Newton (or whoever wrote this text posthumously attributed to him) was wrong in his interpretations. That obviously needs argument. To my eye, it's just the use of a particularly cryptic ancient text as a source of imaginative metaphors for more recent events that are of interest to the modern author. (Why the focus on Europe? Why don't any of these 'metals' or 'beasts' or whatever supposedly refer to the Gupta empire in India or to the various Chinese dynasties? Because Newton was ignorant about and uninterested in them?) I acknowledge that you (and Newton apparently, given his Puritan background) hate the Roman Catholic church. But I don't join you in that. China has a population of about 1.2 billion. I don't know how many members the Chinese communist party has, but maybe it's about a million. I think that the number of Muslims in the world is something over a billion as well. (How many Islamic legal scholars are there?) Or maybe it's referring to India... My point is that we can find analogies wherever we look, if we just squint our eyes a little to make things blurry and then use a little imagination.
