BS: One for the astrophysicist

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:06 PM

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell 

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:08 PM

101 ?
and bill, also for the whatever time.....
it is all very well saying that creationists are not accepting the evidence, but unless you can present said evidence, there is no evidence up for discussion. and of course, all those evolutionist scientists may be doing good science in their basic job of SCIENCE , but when their evolutionary faith gets in the way......
and if you want to follow the evidence where it leads, I concede that the YEC position cannot be conclusively proved, but I am sure the eons claimed by evolutionists are seriously challenged by the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 10:18 PM

And what evidence is that, pete?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 03:30 AM

Well I had never heard of Hartnett or Faulkner, so I looked them up on NASA ADS. Hartnett has done some nice work with Tobar on crystal oscillators, and some papers on Carmeli's metric. Faulkner is harder as its a more common name, but he seems to be someone who works on eclipsing binaries. But they both seem to be people with about 20 papers and about 200 citations. But lets face it, and not wishing to be unkind, not people at the top of the profession.

Martin Gaskell is closer, but he insists that although he is a fundamentalist in other respects, he is not a creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 03:35 AM

Not been following previous threads, don ?                   There are plenty of evidences, but I have just used the ones I can get my head around.    For example, the many cases of preservation of soft tissue that should not be there under measured rates of decay. Same for reported DNA persisting past it's sale by date. That will do for starters. So , in return, what evidence you got for evolutionism ?. Darwin had conceded that his own ideas were not the only interpretation of the data. Has anything changed ?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 07:47 AM

Pete,

Not going to get dragged into this, I have had my arguments with creationists in the past and I have them in the family, and I know well that you can refute every single argument but it will never satisfy them. The vast, vast majority of scientists think it is rubbish. The vast, vast majority of Christians think it is rubbish, I don't know so much about other religions (particularly Islam) but probably they do too. Every mainstream church thinks it is rubbish. Darwin's (and Wallace's) ideas, like Newton's, were ground breaking but no scientific hypothesis is ever the last word, and other ideas have been put forward (for instance by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge). But to say that because of these ideas you question the whole premise of evolution is as stupid as saying that because Einstein's ideas modify Newtonian gravity you don't have to worry about jumping off a cliff.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 11:56 AM

You have a funny way of not getting drawn into it , dave.
so to answer your points, and you can choose if you want to come back on it or not.....
it is irrelevant how many people believe it, unless it can be demonstrated to be the only interpretation of the data. science would be severely stunted if we had been satisfied with a theory just because most people believe it.
whether a scientist is at the very top of his profession or not is not the crucial point.   but , they are up far enough not to be discredited. the arguments validity is paramount.
the scientific and logical challenge to evolutionism is not framed on what we don't know primarily, but on what we do know.
and, it seems to me, your jumping off a cliff analogy seems irrelevant to the argument.    jumping off cliffs is experimentally verified as likely to be fatal!. there is nothing experimentally verified about the general theory of evolution, so I feel like I am on safe ground in questioning it.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 01:58 PM

challenge to evolutionism is not framed on what we don't know primarily, but on what we do know.

Well, pete: You may believe a lot of nonsense, but you don't KNOW shit.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 01:59 PM

The scientific method is that you make a hypothesis with falsifiable predictions, and then other set out to test these predictions. Biology isn't my subject, but standard cosmology may be subject to variations of detail (like whether there is dark matter or not), and the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old if falsiifed by numerous experimental observations, ages of the stars, redshifts of the galaxies, radioactive decay, plate tectonics, a very long list. Its a non-starter. I also don't see why people would need it. Even the theology is pretty dodgy.

Evolution, maybe modified by punctuated equilibrium is established.

Big bang cosmology, maybe with dark matter, maybe with out, is established.

Stellar nucleosynthesis, and the timescales involved in that, is established.

Plate tectonics, and the age of the Earth (to with maybe 10% accuracy) is established.

And I havn't even seen that your stated creationist scientists have argued against any of these things, at least not in anything indexed by the NASA Astrophysics Database. And I did look.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 04:19 PM

I also think you read like a religious mystic, with all your talk of wonder and mystery. and I wonder, if you have considered that given that you are thus conceding limits to even your knowledge , being such a hardline atheist is inconsistent , since despite the mystery you discount a creator.

In the Beginning... there was, and is, and always will be, HUMAN SPIRITUALITY - which is common to each and everyone of us & defines our very Humanity. It's there in our sense of Beauty, Awe, Mystery, Awe, Joy, Love, Sorrow, Numinosity, Empathy, Togetherness, Ethics, Wonder and Ecstasy. All these things precede and transcend religion; they exist without any need of either God or the Supernatural. Indeed, religion exists solely to exploit them, much as pornography exists to exploit our sexuality. Ergo - Religion is spiritual porn.

We began, however so many thousands of years ago, with poetic metaphors for a cosmos we weren't at all equipped to understand, a cosmos of which we a part and yet, of a sudden, by dint of language, art, cognition, culture & aforementioned spirituality, apart. Thus we started making things up. We told stories and personified Nature in terms of what was benevolent or malevolent to our interests. We made metaphors and created allegories. The roots of the GOD CONCEPT is in POETIC ALLEGORY MADE UP BY HUMAN BEINGS IN TIMES WHEN WE KNEW NO BETTER. All great fun, but RELIGION came along, gathered up all these things and took them LITERALLY.

So, as well as being spiritual porn, religion is a spiritual void. Believing in a creator is to discount all cosmic mystery. The more science reveals, the more mysterious and wondrous and awesome it gets. Simple and elegant and perfectly GODLESS.

Enough said.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 07:33 PM

The bottom line, we sort of know quite a few things, and there are a lot of interesting speculaions about the stuff we don't know. But there is far more stuff we don't begin to know or even begin to know we don't know.

Which I suppose is why it's all so interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 08:02 PM

Dave, seems to me from my reading that saying that standard cosmology may be subject to variations of detail, is somewhat an understatement. Apart from the unobservable dark matter, dark energy and Oort Cloud , I think predictions made have often been falsified by new discoveries.   Starlight in a younger universe is of course a favourite objection. However there are various suggested solutions, including ..starlight, time and the new physics...by dr john hartnett , complete with mystifying equations at the end !.   As I understand it, you have your own light travel problem, ie the horizon problem. I am not a scientist , but thankfully there are the simpler arguments.....which incidentally seem to have been sidestepped. I know a bit more theology though, so if you care to say why the theology is dodgy....?       Yes I know those things are established , some like plate tectonics by observational science, but evolutionism, whether by gradualism or jerks is only established in the sense of being the ruling paradigm.   THAT , truly is a non starter. 0 by 0 = 0 however you do the sum.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:17 PM

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:41 PM

but evolutionism, whether by gradualism or jerks

No such thing as "evolutionism", jerk.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 05:30 AM

Where Pete are the peer-reviewed publications by Dr. John Hartnett or anyone else proposing these ideas? If I knew what his mystifying equations were I could see whether they made sense.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 11:31 AM

Last night I spent a bit of spare time getting up to speed on this because it interested me and to confirm the sense Dave was making.I was taught Stars appeared first then after a shed load of time galaxies formed and that a collection of Stars was a galaxy.The word galaxy was implied to have a certain definition ie a cluster of Stars. In Henriettas defence I would imagine that's what the majority would assume without specifically researching it.Anyway a post of Dave.O/Dave (can't remember which one) has cleared up the OP's question (for me) so onto the thread drift 8)
            Religion,Spirituality whatever you want to call it needs science to keep it honest and relevant.If Religion is just a set of moral laws to live by then it should be relegated to the status of similar like AA or BoyScouts, current Masonry etc. If it is trying to deliver something else, then this something needs to be properly investigated and put under scrutiny.You see this thing that Religion is supposed to deliver becomes something else once spoken about.Science could one day explain most of what's occurring and give it more relevancy. It's not too much of a leap to see that at their heart Science and Spirituality are just parallel paths (up to a point) and both need to recognise this. Religion should not fear Science, most rational people don't. Science has got a lot wrong and will keep getting things wrong, but at least it looks to recognise its errors and evolves as more is understood and tested. I personally hope these great Religions get relevant as my worry is they will vanish and for me that would be a loss. Unfortunately in their current form most aren't much use and a mass of contradictions especially when voiced by some of their practitioners.
             Science needs Spirituality. Many reputable Scientists have now come to the conclusion that empirical evidence from the 5 senses is limited and another perspective is needed for us to progress.I'm not going to list them because it's a mighty list,but most of our " geniuses " in science have experienced different states of awareness that brought the disciplines of science on in leaps down through the ages. Both Science and spirituality are the search for truth. One is the search for truth in the physical world, the other the search for the truth of the nature of consciousness.There should be no conflict and one day in our future when science has mapped consciousness to the extent it has space,time and matter we will be in better shape, and the two approaches will be reconciled some.
             I can never get interested in the young Earth debate as it's pointless imo, but the how can something come from nothing question has always fascinated me.I currently think there has never has been "nothing" there has always been something .. but what is nothing.These folks here in this link explore nothing.I watched this a while back and just going to watch it again.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 11:34 AM

" I currently think there never has been "nothing" 8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 05:18 PM

well dave, these papers are peer reviewed....but not by the mainstream committed to evolutionism review bodies , who would discount them a priori.    however, as you mentioned yourself, creationists have done work in your department. dr russel Humphreys made scientific predictions in 1984 which were validated when messenger flew by mercury in 2008. he states that these predictions were from a calculation assuming a 6000 yr old universe.
mercurys magnetic field is young! creation.com

its encouraging, timestamp, that you recognize the importance of the spiritual. the YEC debate may seem pointless to you , but I beg to differ, and see it rather as a conflict of paradigms..
what God has revealed vs mens unproven opinions..
and such questions have a bearing on the here and now, as well as the hereafter , as far as the my Christian faith is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 06:16 PM

Pete I'm a Christian too, figure that one out.J.C if he did exist which I think he did,was a spiritually enlightened man.What he achieved we all can.I'm not going to debate you, like I wouldn't my Mother who has the same view as you I would guess,just she never voices it.If like her you gain fulfillment from it you are free to believe what you like for me.We will just have to agree to differ.
          PS If the Buddha and Christ were swapped and lived each others lives you would now be a Buddhist and the Buddhists would be Christians.They were both of their culture and could only operate within certain parameters dictated by their time and culture.Just so as you get where I'm coming from.GL

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:43 AM

right timestamp, I see where you are coming from , however, those certain parameters have not been absolute, and many people have changed. who knows, maybe your mums prayers for you will be answered one day !. nice to chat to you.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 04:38 PM

Mercury's magnetic field is young?

And how, exactly, do you date a magnetic field?

You can measure the field strength of a magnetic field, but there is no way you can date how long it has been in existence.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 05:00 PM

Don,

The magnetic field leaves an imprint in the rocks on the planet's surface. The NASA spacecraft Mercury Messenger as its orbit decayed was actually in low Mercury orbit, and could measure the residual motion in the rocks of the planet's crust. The conclusion is that the magnetic field is actually older than had been previously thought, about 3.7 billion years old. In 2017 the European Space Agency will launch a probe, BepiColumbo, which will make more precise measurements and will measure more precisely the age and strength of the magnetic field, which, like that of Earth, results from the dynamo effect of the iron core of the planet. But its 3.7 billion years old, to within 10%.

http://earthsky.org/space/an-ancient-magnetic-field-on-mercury

The idea that its less than 6000 years old is pure nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 05:04 PM

Sorry I hope that was the spellchecker not me, but that should read "residual magnetism in the rocks of the planet's crust", not "motion".

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:00 PM

One for the astrophysicist
two for the show

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:01 PM

Agreed on the magnetic field "dating" - it also helps determine directionality in continental drift on Earth over time. Billions of years.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:37 PM

Thanks for that, Dave. I was forgetting certain aspects of geology (which, of course, apply to planets other than earth as well).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:53 AM

If the Buddha and Christ were swapped and lived each others lives you would now be a Buddhist and the Buddhists would be Christians.They were both of their culture and could only operate within certain parameters dictated by their time and culture.

The essential difference between Eastern & Western philosophy is that whilst The Buddha attains enlightenment by sitting peaceably beneath a tree, Christ does so in the tortured agonies of being nailed to one. In the East they talk of Yin and Yang, the unnameable Tao and Complimentariness; in the West its all good & evil, sin, and the oppositions of heaven and hell.

Maybe it's got something to do with the weather...

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:50 AM

Buddhish is not a traditional religion with a creator deity:

"Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity,refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering."

Wiki

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:51 AM

The Buddha attains enlightenment by sitting peaceably beneath a tree.
Christ and Christians do so in quiet prayer.

The crucifixion was about something else.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:53 AM

The Buddha attains enlightenment by sitting peaceably beneath a tree, Christ does so in the tortured agonies of being nailed to one." "
    Both statements are wrong Jack. Footy calls, but if you do want to get into it I would,despite my better judgment. First what is enlightenment, secondly how is it achieved. I seriously doubt you're that interested, which in turn makes me struggle to discuss it. 8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:56 AM

Christ prays does he?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:31 AM

Yes ". Guest " , Romans 8 vs 34.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:51 AM

Romans 8:34New International Version (NIV)

Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Where does it say "pray". To intercede is to act as an intermediary, to arbitrate, moderate or conciliate.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:58 AM

Pete, I think you would do better with Gethsemene

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 11:33 AM

Regarding the initial question; stars have always been formed with or without a nearby galaxy in a region of high density hydrogen gas in conditions of near zero energy we simply call mind numbing cold.

It is cool to see how such extreme cold will lead to extreme heat of an eventual star by gravity doing its slow and inexorable power.

As for astrophysicists, their job is to measure as much as they are ale to understand the nature of the changing universe.
Once they can no longer measure qualities of the universe that do not interact in measurable ways the cosmologist is better suited with the knowledge of the measurers to flesh out the unseen unmeasurable universe.

the evolution of the universe offers clues to the unseen cosmos and predicts what may be next.

Thread drift into the creationist viewpoint I view as answers for the least curious, least wondrous AND lazy, yet still valid to the point that the unseen does exist and poses forces greater than our 3D CORNER OF THE UNIVERSE.

I am glad this discussion has flowered despite my previous attempts to spur the fascination of how close we are to immense understanding thanks to the efforts of the measurers throughout the millennia and especial the 100 years.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 11:36 AM

Time Stamp said: " Science needs Spirituality"

No... some people need various forms of Spirituality to help them cope with the vagaries of life. Spirituality seems to have no one really explicit form, but is merely a generic way to express our wondering about the "why" of existence.
Science is concerned more with "how", and mixing Spirituality into its process leads to confusion and distortion about supposedly 'scientific' inquiry.
It is possible for a person to be both scientific and spiritual, but it works far better if they keep the two concerns separated and do not use either one to justify or explain the other.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 11:54 AM

Hey Bill, The multi disciplinary approach to cosmology needs philosophers like yourself along with mathematicians, science fiction speculators, astrophysicists, new quantum physicists, geometric scientists, common but uniquely insightful people and cosmologists with an open mind.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:08 PM

Donuel,

About 10-20 degrees Kelvin. And the cloud heats up by two processes, as it collapses under its own gravity, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy (energy of motion), and then to thermal energy, and to start with the energy is radiated away, but then the density increases and the cloud heats up, and when it has heated up enough nuclear fusion stars, and it becomes a star.

Complicating all this are things like turbulence and magnetism, which result in scary equations which can really only be solved by big, fierce computers. Here my knowledge runs out.

As to whether stars can form outside a galaxy, that may be so, and probably must have been so in the distant past, but as far as I know its not been observed. Its quite difficult to do so, due to us living in the middle of one, regions outside galaxies are far away and often obscured.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:27 PM

HiLo

Hello


All galaxies are connected.

What connects them is what current scientists call filaments of dark matter and black holes. The universe looks like a close up picture of a sponge where there are strands and interactions of material made of galaxies and black holes.

It looks very organic !


On a very high level I will tell you that we are the leaves of a tree, while the unseen universe composes the branches of this "tree".
Explaining this is a very lengthy task that I hesitate to do, not out of rudeness, but only the confines of time.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:43 PM

Dark matter yes (although see caveats above), black holes no. Black holes that we know about are either created at the end of the life of massive stars, or they are in the centres of galaxies where they grow by swallowing stars. Primordial black holes are unlikely, if they were very small they would evaporate, or if larger at least be detected, owing to Hawking radiation. If there were lots of them then the Fermi gamma-ray satellite would have seen them by now.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:45 PM

My nephew is an astrophysicist, currently doing his PhD. I'll ask him. Nice to see all the usual suspects spouting all the usual bollocks. Must mean all is well with the world. Hopefully the weather will stay fine as well :-)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:54 PM

Dave, you are a kindred spirit.
You uniquely know the problem of over simplification on one hand and getting lost in minutia on the other.

Certainly early on in the universe it is fair to say most stars were born independently and later on as galaxies grew abundant most star birth regions lie within galaxies.


By way of introduction to another view of our acceleration universe,
the accelerating formation of black holes and their influence on the dimensions of space is a reveaaling field of research, and yes I intentionally pluralized the word space.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 01:35 PM

Deliberately not getting involved in the weather thread DtG.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 01:41 PM

Both statements are wrong Jack

Both are cherished episodes of transcendence from material concerns in their respective mythic traditions and are, therefore, analogous as far as those traditions can be analogous. It was you who drew the comparison - I was just pointing out how very different they actually are.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 06:42 PM

Jack--"" Both are cherished episodes of transcendence from material concerns in their respective mythic traditions and are, therefore, analogous as far as those traditions can be analogous. It was you who drew the comparison - I was just pointing out how very different they actually are." "

Here I will try get you up to speed and as easy to understand as I can. What you typed there is irrelevant,not trying to be a smart arse just we could get bogged down.
                "Spiritual" Enlightenment is when a human being experiences pure consciousness. When experienced all realise that consciousness is not quite how most of us think it is. I'm getting no more descriptive than that except to say it feels like home. It is so familiar that it feels more like rediscovery than discovery.Are we born in this state ? I dont know.
                  To experience this the bodies of Christ or Buddha will of gone through a physical process. The physical process has been mapped to some degree and labelled kundalini. I'm going to give you a link but ignore the terminology they use like "Spirituality" and words like Chakra,as they have baggage, what you have to do is see past this. Dispassionately look to the process mapped. People go through this process without knowing about "Chakras" or being spiritual. Far healthier imo is to view it as the intelligence of the body,but this deep intelligence is stopped from happening because of our conscious thought. Your conscious thought needs to be stilled long enough for your body to do its thing. It is very subtle when it starts most of the time but gets very unsubtle as it progresses . Part through it, the brain starts to resonate (for the want of a better term) differently and it is quite intense. When you have reached this state visions,demons,angels,aliens,leprechauns, fairies etc is imagined and a host of other phenomena.This is a truly fascinating state but you can't indulge it as after a period of time all this delusion stops. I and many others think this is us navigating our subconscious and a lot of it is culturally implanted. Once you and the intelligence that is your subconscious has been navigated/ stilled your brain kicks up another level and you see reality and it is experienced as Heaven,Nirvana,Bliss etc..enlightenment.
                  The period of delusion experienced has gotten mixed up in a lot of religions which hasn't always been helpfull to us.There is no one right way,many tribes and people have had no religion,there are many paths grasshopper 8) Wasn't it you who posted that you had started tai chi the last time I was reading here... a few months back. If I'm mistaken well never mind,but if I'm right google Tai Chi and enlightenment. Tai Chi seems a very gentle healthy way of exploring this. Warning though sometimes it can be a long drawn out affair that can be a serious problem for a while.
                Your probably going to think this a crock of shite but remember many many people from every generation go through this and always have.It needs addressing and we need Science to go after it to clear it up as much as it can,because it's not going to go away. The God helmet (google it) might of been a way to start understanding this as it seems to trigger part of the kundalini process phenomena, but no real hard data as yet.No one is going to be told this,but by studying the process it is a way of starting to understand it,once understood look for it in all religions, traditions,practices and it's there. Ignore labels, imagery, conclusions,look for the process. Written far more than I wanted and skimmed over a lot, but any further chat is fruitless.If you're interested you will make your own enquiry.
Rgrds
          Don't know if it was intentional but your reply to Pete, Dave, was back of the net,also the 40 days in the desert episode which was Jesus raising the kundalini.
          Busy all next week so that's me done.GL... Was that a "Thank Christ for that ! from DtG I hear 8)

--kundalini link,not that informative but it's a starting point...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:03 PM

don't" and probably a few more typos. 8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:11 PM

Well maybe , Dave , but the the question was asked in the present tense. Don't know about you, but if see no problem in intercession being a facet of prayer in theology or common English usage.....but if guest don't, that's fine with me!.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:17 PM

"Your head's like mine, like all our heads; big enough to contain every god and devil there ever was. Big enough to hold the weight of oceans and the turning stars. Whole universes fit in there! But what do we choose to keep in this miraculous cabinet? Little broken things, sad trinkets that we play with over and over. The world turns our key and we play the same little tune again and again and we think that tune's all we are." 
― Grant Morrison

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 03:57 AM

You probably going to think this a crock of shite

You got that right.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 01:43 PM

"Hey Bill, The multi disciplinary approach to cosmology needs philosophers like yourself...."

Thanks Guest... we know that, *grin*.. but the standard mind-set is to "pick a side" and defend it.Our (my) attempts to sort out the awkward bits of fallacious reasoning and rhetorical language are usually considered either boring or not helpful to their debates.
Everyone with an ax to grind is impatient with someone trying to correct their syntax and logic.

Ah well..........