A warning for Brian Rush.

http://youtu.be/DJAovQp7QY8?t=7m23s

You'll believe in spooks before I'm through with you!

A beautiful and challenging spiritual (as opposed to religious) book: Living with a Wild God

She does a masterful job of analyzing mystical experiences, including her own, while dissecting that sort of thing from religion and "god." She has a Ph.D. in molecular biology and keeps a nice scientific touch in place as well. A superb and balanced work about a strange and interesting topic.

Originally Posted by TnT

A beautiful and challenging spiritual (as opposed to religious) book: Living with a Wild God

She does a masterful job of analyzing mystical experiences, including her own, while dissecting that sort of thing from religion and "god." She has a Ph.D. in molecular biology and keeps a nice scientific touch in place as well. A superb and balanced work about a strange and interesting topic.

I saw her interviewed on Tavis Smiley.
http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/...ch-5413743.php

He is a "believer," and she is an "atheist," so it made for an interesting conversation. They may both fall short of coming to the truthful center on this subject, but they are making the journey, it seems.

Here's excerpts from a review by SFGate:
http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/...ch-5413743.php

in May 1959, Ehrenreich had a mystical experience. Walking down an empty street in an isolated California town, "it seemed astounding to just to be moving forward on my own strength, unimpeded, pulled toward the light."

This non-Webster's experience went beyond words, except for "the vague gurgles of surrender expressed in words like 'ineffable' and 'transcendent.' " But Barbara the empiricist knew "it would be a great mistake to ignore the stray bit of data that doesn't fit into your preconceived theories.... I had seen what I had seen - whatever it is that lies under the named world - and I was not going to deny its existence." So what to do? She wrote it off for years as insignificant or pathological.

But three major events of her life brought her to a place where she could look at that long-ago experience with both objectivity and sympathy. First, the eruption of the faraway Vietnam War into her mechanistic world of lab science: "This momentary superposition of stolid Jack and the distant jungle" meant that society's "instruments of coercion were sharper and closer than I had ever noticed before."

She became an antiwar activist, anti-authoritarian activist and a mother: "Equivocate all you want about the autonomous consciousness of other humans, but when two of them arrive in your life out of nowhere ... well, the metaphysical question is settled." A late-in-life introduction to the wonders of nature, and "years of research into history, prehistory, and theology," left Ehrenreich "intellectually prepared ... to acknowledge the possible existence of conscious beings - 'gods,' spirits, extraterrestrials - that normally elude our senses." Ehrenreich is more than aware that this might sound kooky to some: "Given the poverty of metaphysical speculation in our time, an atheist admits [this] only at some risk to her public integrity."

But if she can keep an open mind, then "human solidarity, which is the only reason for writing a book, requires that I call on others to do so also." Many of us still ignore those stubborn, inquisitive questions from younger versions of ourselves. But Barbara Ehrenreich has made a career of bravely paying attention where others fear to tread. "Living With a Wild God" is no different; and for that we should all be grateful.

Survival after physical death does not mean that your spiritual quest is over. Nor does death enforce upon you an end to your spiritual quest, after which you automatically become the one consciousness forever.

Death as commonly understood by Western society, is just the expression of a people hypnotized by science and reason. The detour from real life in modern times may blind us to the greater reality known by other peoples and in other times. It might seem to modern people that science has proved physical life to be all there is, because as Vandal says we are damaged in our functioning when the body is damaged. But if we are more than our body, then perhaps being confined to its functions is a temporary condition. And if the whole idea of "physical" is vastly over-rated to begin with, and may not even be a fact, then we already are spiritual or energy bodies and not physical ones, and only need to realize it. And we may eventually learn to move to and from the dimensions freely, as well as communicate between them, just as Christ demonstrated and The Celestine Prophecy foretells.

Even so, when we are "freed" from the body at death, we still need to experience that connection and interdependence of whatever survives death with the One. And if we can experience that connection while still alive, then when we move on to "heaven," then there's not much difference to our spiritual level of realization. Our quest continues, whether we are physical or post-physical; perhaps with more go-rounds needed in the denser world. Physical death and rebirth remain important transitions. But whether we survive as individuals or not, we are still interdependent and connected to the One, and still need to realize this. Death of the separate ego, and physical death, are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Survival after physical death does not mean that your spiritual quest is over. Nor does death enforce upon you an end to your spiritual quest, after which you automatically become the one consciousness forever.

Death as commonly understood by Western society, is just the expression of a people hypnotized by science and reason. The detour from real life in modern times may blind us to the greater reality known by other peoples and in other times. It might seem to modern people that science has proved physical life to be all there is, because as Vandal says we are damaged in our functioning when the body is damaged. But if we are more than our body, then perhaps being confined to its functions is a temporary condition. And if the whole idea of "physical" is vastly over-rated to begin with, and may not even be a fact, then we already are spiritual or energy bodies and not physical ones, and only need to realize it. And we may eventually learn to move to and from the dimensions freely, as well as communicate between them, just as Christ demonstrated and The Celestine Prophecy foretells.

Even so, when we are "freed" from the body at death, we still need to experience that connection and interdependence of whatever survives death with the One. And if we can experience that connection while still alive, then when we move on to "heaven," then there's not much difference to our spiritual level of realization. Our quest continues, whether we are physical or post-physical; perhaps with more go-rounds needed in the denser world. Physical death and rebirth remain important transitions. But whether we survive as individuals or not, we are still interdependent and connected to the One, and still need to realize this. Death of the separate ego, and physical death, are not the same thing.

It's really pathetic to watch you forced to make me out as the villain in your battles with your own fear of mortality.

revived from Page 1:

Originally Posted by Chicken Little

Here's a fun test to help you determine where you will spend the Hereafter.
Mine came up much better than I thought. I'm going to Purgatory.
If anyone here has read Dante's Inferno, the worst sins are greed and treachery.

http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv

I'm headed to Limbo. "Virtuous pagan"? I'd be near Anne Frank... and mercifully not Hans Frank. At least the music will be by George and Ira Gershwin... with plenty of great performers; there will be plenty of prints by Uemaro and Hokusai; Confucius, Maimonides, Avicenna, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gautama Buddha, and Zoroaster will be discussing the issues of an afterlife in Limbo; Albert Einstein will be supreme in discovering the ultimate realities of nature. Rulers include Cyrus the Great, Saladin, Thomas Jefferson (just look at the "Jefferson Bible"), Abraham Lincoln (who seems to have rarely attended church), Golda Meir, and in his turn Mikhail Gorbachev. Not too bad, huh?

Charon ushers you across the river Acheron, and you find yourself upon the brink of grief's abysmal valley. You are in Limbo, a place of sorrow without torment. You encounter a seven-walled castle, and within those walls you find rolling fresh meadows illuminated by the light of reason, whereabout many shades dwell. These are the virtuous pagans, the great philosophers and authors, unbaptised children, and others unfit to enter the kingdom of heaven. You share company with Caesar, Homer, Virgil, Socrates, and Aristotle. There is no punishment here, and the atmosphere is peaceful, yet sad.

...I tried fitting the test to someone well known in history whose initials are A H (no, not Alfred Hitchcock!)... and he ends up in the Malebolgia (8th circle of Hell). Surprisingly not the Ninth Circle:

Many and varied sinners suffer eternally in the multi-leveled Malebolge, an ampitheatre-shapped pit of despair Wholly of stone and of an iron colour: Those guilty of fraudulence and malice; the seducers and pimps, who are whipped by horned demons; the hypocrites, who struggle to walk in lead-lined cloaks; the barraters, who are ducked in boiling pitch by demons known as the Malebranche. The simonists, wedged into stone holes, and whose feet are licked by flames, kick and writhe desperately. The magicians, diviners, fortune tellers, and panderers are all here, as are the thieves. Some wallow in human excrement. Serpents writhe and wrap around men, sometimes fusing into each other. Bodies are torn apart. When you arrive, you will want to put your hands over your ears because of the lamentations of the sinners here, who are afflicted with scabs like leprosy, and lay sick on the ground, furiously scratching their skin off with their nails. Indeed, justice divine doth smite them with its hammer.

Dante would probably single out Nazis and Stalinists today for particularly vile abuse. Being devoured forever by dogs (dogs set against helpless prisoners in Nazi concentration and extermination camps would return to devour Nazis -- the Big Cats go for the neck and make quick work of their victims).

OK -- Dante has an extreme bias toward Christianity.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

revived from Page 1:


I'm headed to Limbo. "Virtuous pagan"?

I'll see you there by and by.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

It's really pathetic to watch you forced to make me out as the villain in your battles with your own fear of mortality.

I should call you Darth Vandal!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'll see you there by and by.

Indeed, we might. Isn't the arduous struggle for purification in the Afterlife a Hell in its own right? Many of the saints of Catholicism got there by being fed to lions or some other horrible martyrdom.

If there is a Hell, then it is so because of the souls there. Forget the scenery and the climate -- who'd want to be among drunks and addicts, let alone Stalinists, even in San Francisco? Limbo might be as crowded as Hong Kong today or parts of Manhattan at its worst -- but at least the art, music, and drama would be very, very good. I might need to learn Yiddish to appreciate some of the best of the stage in Limbo; there would be plenty of time there and plenty of good teachers.

I have my own idea of what Heaven would be like -- people getting the chance to get things right. Monetary gain? No. There would be no need for it. Imagine learning to play the cello and finding something beyond the notes in Bach's cello suites. That would be more satisfying than any jewel, mansion, yacht, or high-end marque of car.

Sure, we are all sinners. But some of us become morally improved through our own struggles. Those struggles can cause one to question the authority of religious dogma, and someone like Bertrand Russell is far better a guide to morals than some huckstering televangelist. (Russell would be in Limbo).

Gotta see where Dubya is going.

Dubya? It isn't pretty. Let's put it this way -- he is not going to see Abraham Lincoln when he dies. He's more likely to end up with people like Leonid Brezhnev.

The river Styx runs through this (fifth) level of Hell, and in it are punished the wrathful and the gloomy. The former are forever lashing out at each other in anger, furious and naked, tearing each other piecemeal with their teeth. The latter are gurgling in the black mud, slothful and sullen, withdrawn from the world. Their lamentations bubble to the surface as they try to repeat a doleful hymn, though with unbroken words they cannot say it. Because you lived a cruel, vindictive and hateful life, you meet your fate in the Styx.

I didn't identify him, and I guessed on some of his behaviors. Although he is probably quite loyal to his wife and his cronies, he goes down -- way down -- for offering bad counsel. He made a fortune owning a baseball team in part by corrupt deals that got him assets at below-market value. He got America into the war in Iraq on lies; he sponsored the destructive speculation in real estate that ultimately brought the most dangerous meltdown in America since 1929-1933. He is apparently straight and in no way a religious heretic for which Dante sees people condemned. These days, homosexuality and heresy are trivialities.

His art, which frequently shows himself pointlessly nude (at his age he is no hunk and he was never a hunk as a young man) gives a warning. He's a nasty-nice person.

My advice to Dubya: get help, if possible, from Billy Graham or Pope Francis, and without delay. The moral struggle is worth it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I should call you Darth Vandal!

You do realize that Vader ended up being the hero in the end, right!?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You do realize that Vader ended up being the hero in the end, right!?

Anti-hero, actually.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Anti-hero, actually.

He sacrificed himself to defeat the Emperor and save his son. What's "anti" about that?

Vader becomes like a Byronic Hero archetype, which is often thrown in as a subset of the antiheros, but really isn't:

"Proud, moody, cynical, with defiance on his brow, and misery in his heart, a scorner of his kind, implacable in revenge, yet capable of deep and strong affection"

He knew himself a villain—but he deem'd
The rest no better than the thing he seem'd;
And scorn'd the best as hypocrites who hid
Those deeds the bolder spirit plainly did.
He knew himself detested, but he knew
The hearts that loath'd him, crouch'd and dreaded too.
Lone, wild, and strange, he stood alike exempt
From all affection and from all contempt

A strong challenge to Darth Vandal and Rian Brush. I'm not the only one who is "childish!"

http://youtu.be/Y0c5nIvJH7w?t=9m37s

Originally Posted by Justin '77

He sacrificed himself to defeat the Emperor and save his son. What's "anti" about that?

Taken even further, I always regarded Vader's theme as a duality-of-man mythology. It's a yin and yang tale, though admittedly sloppily handled by Lucas in the prequels. When the 6 movies are examined as a single story, Anakin isn't just a hero, he is the hero, fulfilling the prophecy by bringing balance to the force; Literally destroying the old, worn down system and bringing it back to the first (last) Jedi, his own son.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A strong challenge to Darth Vandal and Rian Brush. I'm not the only one who is "childish!"

http://youtu.be/Y0c5nIvJH7w?t=9m37s

Early cave art is "emergence of consciousness"? Says who?

Beginning of shamanism? Says who?

Sudden and radical change? Says who?

The one plant with the inhibitor? Says who? Did he test all of the other 150,000 plants himself or did he just make that claim up?

No one does this for fun? Straight up bullshit.

Creative cosmogenic impulse? Made up phrase that means exactly whatever Hancock decides it means. In other words, it's a meaningless phrase.

Universal encounters with intelligent entities?

Says he isn't sure if the entities exist but then spends the next several minutes telling us all about the identity of one entity and explicit details about what the entity wants from us.

The fact that you think this guy has anything interesting to say just goes to further demonstrate that you completely lack even the basic ability to think critically.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

He sacrificed himself to defeat the Emperor and save his son. What's "anti" about that?

For a real-life example: think of Andrei Vlasov, the Soviet turncoat general who commanded the collaborationist Russian Liberation Army after being captured by the Nazis. They could easily wage war against the Soviet Union that they despised, but once he got the command to mow down the Czech rising against the Nazis he and his army turned on the Nazis. Vlasov and his collaborator army had nothing against the Czechs. But as events would prove it would be too late. (A tip-off that Vlasov was not a pure Nazi was that he refused to attach antisemitism to his political agenda for a 'liberated Russia').

........................

Most people have their limits, one of which is to not do evil to kin -- especially family members. Doing horrible things to complete strangers under orders is far easier than beating or killing family members in the furtherance of a cause.

Darth Vader could have killed Luke Skywalker or Princess Leia at any time; it would have been easy for him just as it was for him to kill Obi Wan Kenobe when the old man let his guard down. But Darth Vader and Darth Vader, companions at one time when young, had gone in different directions. Whatever tie they had in youth was by then void. Darth Vader wanted his son and daughter to survive to turn the Force to the side of the (evil) Empire. In Star Wars VI, such becomes clear. Darth Vader had an evil agenda for his son and daughter that went beyond their destruction.

Well, discussion of the background of Darth Vandal, and whether or not he's evil, or how evil he is, may be entertaining, but I want to get back to questioning the dominant paradigm that Darth Vandal upholds as the absolute truth, which in fact is fundamentalist nonsense-- and very deadly nonsense at that. It steals your soul and kills your mind.

It seems to all be based on the concept of "matter," which was developed by the Greek atomists and pre-socratic philosophers before them, and incorporated by Aristotle in his highly-developed natural scientific philosophy. It's nothing but an idea, which if you violate, you are assumed to be unscientific, when in fact it is nothing but a naive assumption.

Today's science has shown it up for the chimera that it is. Vandal claims that I know not whereof I speak, and yet the soul thief in chief continues to base his whole set of diatribes upon it as if no scientists existed for the last 120 years! We know that the "atom" is in fact mostly empty space, but we keep on maintaining it is something hard and impenetrable just because something resists our own soft skin. We know that solids can become liquids, and liquids can become gases, and gases when heated and/or concentrated burst into flames; and what are flames? Where is your "solid" matter then? It's become pure energy.

And where did all this energy come from, of which we and all the "solid bodies" that we feel and see consist? From a miracle; that one free miracle. Remember Sheldrake quotes another philosophy who sums up the big bang and what science does with it. "Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest." This takes you right back to the Platonic proof of the soul. How can there be something caused by something else caused by something else caused by something else, ad infinitum? The problem with this approach of Vandalese science is that it explains nothing. It must proceed from a miracle. That is the first cause, the unmoved mover, the soul.

And since science appears to have proved that the universe began with a miracle, why does it need to still insist that there was only one, and that it can't happen again? Why not miracles everywhere, all the time?

There's lots more to say on this topic, which I have covered a lot of in this lengthy thread that I started long ago. But I realized something interesting today. Newton's "laws" say that "a body at rest, tends to stay at rest; a body in motion tends to stay in motion." I think it's interesting that this old alchemist and astrologer Issac Newton said "tends." He didn't say "must." It sounds to me identical with what Sheldrake and others of his school say, that there are not "laws" of the universe, but "habits." Things tend to happen as they are used to happen. But habits can be broken. Living things have an interesting and constant tendency to break that Newtonian "habit." They don't tend to stay at rest, or in motion, at all. Suddenly, without any cause or notice, they get up and move, or even fly away. And then they stop again. All on a mere whim. In fact, I decided to write this post on a whim too. Life has learned a lot of new habits, and continues to do so.

Here is a reference in case Vandal charges that I am misquoting Newton.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...wton3laws.html

Life is a miracle. Miracles happen all the time. Attempts by science, which I'm sure Vandal will falsely claim "I have never heard of" and "don't know about," to explain them away, are hopeless. They explain nothing at all. Instead, the new quantum theories say that everything is possibility, and only actual when they are measured. And measurement is a merely human, all-too-human, attempt to fix and control a world that eludes our grasp forever.

The Vandals will keep trying to explain the new science theories away, and all the evidence for them too. But it is a losing battle. The new age has dawned. The spirit is making a comeback. Vandal's philosophy of science and complete death is a hoax, rapidly being found out and exposed to be the fraud it has always been! Stay tuned, there's more to come here and elsewhere, and read the evidence already posted here in this long thread too! The Vandals are being caught in their own traps! The sooner the better; it's past time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, discussion of the background of Darth Vandal, and whether or not he's evil, or how evil he is, may be entertaining, but I want to get back to questioning the dominant paradigm that Darth Vandal upholds as the absolute truth, which in fact is fundamentalist nonsense-- and very deadly nonsense at that. It steals your soul and kills your mind.

You done putting words in my mouth? Or will this entire rant be nothing but lies and made up claims?

It seems to all be based on the concept of "matter," which was developed by the Greek atomists and pre-socratic philosophers before them, and incorporated by Aristotle in his highly-developed natural scientific philosophy. It's nothing but an idea,

No it isn't. Ideas can not be measured and don't squish you flat when dropped from an elevated location.

which if you violate, you are assumed to be unscientific, when in fact it is nothing but a naive assumption.

How dare those physicists go around assuming things! Even worse, they go around measuring all that damn matter!

Today's science has shown it up for the chimera that it is. Vandal claims that I know not whereof I speak,

Trust me! you've left enough evidence to support anyone making the claim.

and yet the soul thief in chief continues to base his whole set of diatribes upon it as if no scientists existed for the last 120 years! We know that the "atom" is in fact mostly empty space,

Can you, in your own words and without Googling, tell everyone how exactly "we" know this? Can you tell me how a wave function model of electrons can be rectified with the claim that the atom is empty space?

but we keep on maintaining it is something hard and impenetrable just because something resists our own soft skin.

No. "We" do nothing of the sort. You think others think that way because you are ignorant of what scientists actually know about atoms. For example, I see that you have failed to make any mention of electromagnetic repulsion.

We know that solids can become liquids, and liquids can become gases, and gases when heated and/or concentrated burst into flames; and what are flames? Where is your "solid" matter then? It's become pure energy.

Moron. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7_8Gc_Llr8.

And where did all this energy come from, of which we and all the "solid bodies" that we feel and see consist? From a miracle; that one free miracle. Remember Sheldrake quotes another philosophy who sums up the big bang and what science does with it.

Yeah. Why not just take the word of a botanist who hasn't done research in forty years. He's clearly qualified to refute all those damn cosmologists and particle physicists with their observations, experiments and theories. Clearly they can't possible know something that he doesn't. You'll just need to buy his book if you want to find out what it is.

"Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest." This takes you right back to the Platonic proof of the soul. How can there be something caused by something else caused by something else caused by something else, ad infinitum?

Um. Steady state theory bit the dust decades ago.

The problem with this approach of Vandalese science is that it explains nothing.

Yeah. Pay no attention to that microwave oven, GPS locater, satellite television, Blu-Ray player and other modern technologies. Since they were derived from non-spiritual science, they can't possibly work or let alone exist!

It must proceed from a miracle. That is the first cause, the unmoved mover, the soul.

New Age pablum to cover up the fact that math is hard and they don't understand what physicists do.

And since science appears to have proved that the universe began with a miracle, why does it need to still insist that there was only one, and that it can't happen again? Why not miracles everywhere, all the time?

Because your so called "first miracle" has produced measurable, testable consequences in our universe. Your "subsequent miracles" never, ever do that.

There's lots more to say on this topic, which I have covered a lot of in this lengthy thread that I started long ago. But I realized something interesting today. Newton's "laws" say that "a body at rest, tends to stay at rest; a body in motion tends to stay in motion." I think it's interesting that this old alchemist and astrologer Issac Newton said "tends." He didn't say "must."

Ignorance on parade. Why can't you be bothered to provide the rest of the description of Newton's First Law? You do know that your quote is incomplete right? If you ever bother to actually learn the science you'll see that the complete first law renders your observation ridiculous.

It sounds to me identical with what Sheldrake and others of his school say, that there are not "laws" of the universe, but "habits." Things tend to happen as they are used to happen. But habits can be broken.

Well, let's just stop this brain dribble right now. The complete law says "an object in motion, tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. An object at rest will remain at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force.

The second law goes on to describe exactly how the inertial state (1st law) is modified by forces. No miracles required.

Living things

have an interesting and constant tendency to break that Newtonian "habit."

No. They don't.

They don't tend to stay at rest, or in motion, at all. Suddenly, without any cause or notice, they get up and move, or even fly away. And then they stop again. All on a mere whim. In fact, I decided to write this post on a whim too. Life has learned a lot of new habits, and continues to do so.

Holy crap. This has got to be some of the stupidest dreck you've ever posted!

There is so much wrong with it, I'm at a loss as to where to begin.

Here is a reference in case Vandal charges that I am misquoting Newton.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...wton3laws.html

From your link: I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

I bolded the portion you failed to quote.

It is a miracle. Miracles happen all the time. Attempts by science, which I'm sure Vandal will falsely claim "I have never heard of" and "don't know about," to explain them away, are hopeless.

There is nothing to be explained away. New Agers like yourself repeatedly fail to present evidence of anything in need of explaining.

They explain nothing at all. Instead, the new quantum theories say that everything is possibility,

Since you couldn't even copy and paste Newton's First Law properly, why in the world should anyone take your word for what quantum mechanics shows us?

and only actual when they are measured.

No. That is not what the "observer effect" in quantum mechanics means.

And measurement is a merely human, all-too-human, attempt to fix and control a world that eludes our grasp forever.

The Vandals will keep trying to explain the new science theories away,

1- Quantum mechanics isn't new.
2- I'm not trying to explain anything away. I'm pointing out that you don't have the slightest understanding of what you are talking about.

and all the evidence for them too. But it is a losing battle. The new age has dawned. The spirit is making a comeback.

Translation: Book sales are robust.

Vandal's philosophy of science and complete death is a hoax, rapidly being found out and exposed to be the fraud it has always been! Stay tuned, there's more to come here and elsewhere, and read the evidence already posted here in this long thread too! The Vandals are being caught in their own traps! The sooner the better; it's past time.

Your fear of mortality seems to be escalating recently. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We know that solids can become liquids, and liquids can become gases, and gases when heated and/or concentrated burst into flames; and what are flames? Where is your "solid" matter then? It's become pure energy.

Oh dear Eric. When gases "burst into flames," it's because the gases are combining with oxygen. The amount of "matter" really hasn't changed in this example. The energy is simply the difference between the energy of the pre-combustion molecules and the post-combustion molecules.

You are leading with your chin.

Originally Posted by TnT

Oh dear Eric. When gases "burst into flames," it's because the gases are combining with oxygen. The amount of "matter" really hasn't changed in this example. The energy is simply the difference between the energy of the pre-combustion molecules and the post-combustion molecules.

Actually, a flame can be produced by any number of very exothermic chemical reactions. Flourine, oxygen, chlorine, and even sulfur can produce a flame when combined with another element or compound. " The energy is simply the difference between the energy of the pre-combustion molecules and the post-combustion molecules." <- Yes, that is correct. The net energy yield is sufficient to product visible light + heat to produce ions. [Flame] There is a slight loss of matter due to the e=mc**2 equation as well.

You are leading with your chin.

IOW "Take a risk, behave without caution."

* Wile e Coyote award for Eric.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

There is so much wrong with it, I'm at a loss as to where to begin.

Something simple. Like, the above. See all of bad shit that can happen when you ignore the law of gravity.

Originally Posted by TnT

Oh dear Eric. When gases "burst into flames," it's because the gases are combining with oxygen. The amount of "matter" really hasn't changed in this example. The energy is simply the difference between the energy of the pre-combustion molecules and the post-combustion molecules.

You are leading with your chin.

Oh, I know the conventional science view on that; I did learn that in Jr. High. Of course, I am also talking about what happens in nuclear explosions too. I consider there's a more elevated way of looking at "fire" and "energy." The ancients held that there were 4 elements. When the word "elements" began to be used to represent the atomic number in the atomic configuration, from which molecules (or compounds) are formed, modern chemists changed the 4 ancient elements to the "3 states of matter," and they remained part of physics and chemistry under that title. But the 4th element was dropped from this list (not to speak of the 5th, spirit or space).

But why should fire be dropped? We know that energy is a state of matter, especially since Einstein, and so I don't know why it should not also be equated with the ancient element called "fire." And what is a flame, which obviously is part of the sense-experienced universe, and thus part of "matter"? Ordinary fire also transforms "matter" and releases energy, in the form of heat and light that was not present before the fire started. Ultimately, it is this energy that was the original form of what we call "matter" and which moves everything else and makes life possible. Electricity could also be seen as another form of "fire," along with the "four forces." In other words, force in general. Force is not a solid, liquid or gas, is it?

So there are other ways to generate energy than through chemical reactions with oxygen. But this does not imply that the "amount of matter" has "changed;" that's a different question. The four (or five) ancient elements are the states of whatever we call (probably falsely) "matter." The point is not that the amount of matter has changed; the point is that matter is a lot more diaphanous that you usually think matter is, if you typically identify it with something that resists our skin or behaves with inertia. Just as "matter" can change its "state" from solid to liquid to gas, it can also "change" into energy, and is ultimately energy.

That just transfers the question to another level. What then, is energy? You can say "capacity to do work," but that doesn't tell you what it is; only what it does (from a rather human-oriented viewpoint too).

(Rags)
Flourine, oxygen, chlorine, and even sulfur can produce a flame when combined with another element or compound. "

Thanks; I was thinking that.

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72
There is so much wrong with it, I'm at a loss as to where to begin.

I would have been quite disappointed if the Vandal had NOT said that.

May the force be with you!

Ok Eric. Whatever.

Great words from Rupert Sheldrake to take note of.
http://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg?t=5m59s

"I'm going to take first the idea that the laws of nature are fixed. This is a hangover from an older world view before the 1960s when the big bang theory came in, people thought that the whole universe was eternal, governed by eternal mathematical laws. When the big bang came in, then that assumption continued, even though the big bang revealed a universe that's radically evolutionary, about 14 billions years old; growing and developing and evolving for 14 billion years, growing and cooling, and more structures and patterns appear within it. But the idea is, all the laws of nature were completely fixed at the moment of the big bang like a cosmic Napoleonic Code. As my friend Terrance McKenna used to say, modern science is based on the principle, "give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest." And the one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, and all the laws that govern it, from nothing, in a single instant.
(lol)

Well, in an evolutionary universe, why shouldn't the laws themselves evolve? After all, human laws do, and the idea of laws of nature is based on a metaphor with human laws. It's a very anthropocentric metaphor. Only humans have laws; in fact only civilized societies have laws. As C.S. Lewis once said, "to say that a stone falls to earth because it's obeying a law, makes it a man, and even a citizen." It's a metaphor that we've got so used to, we forget it's a metaphor. In an evolving universe, I think a much better idea is the idea of habits. I think the habits of nature evolve; the regularities of nature are essentially habitual."