the universe and space....?

Hokie, and possibly Terry and Ican especially,

Have you ever heard of or done an experiment roughly laid out like this

Take a flashlight, with a good parabolic reflecter,
Take a spiderweb thread and suspend a BB sized sphere from it.
Shine the flashlight at the suspended sphere and look at the pattern on the opposite wall.
I'm wondering if it will make a pattern remnicient of the "Einstein Cross".

The Einstein Cross is predicted by special relativity. It has been observed. We can even see a few on some of the Hubble pictures.
If another simple device makes a similar pattern then this will also render this observation (of the E.Cross) ambiguous.

Hokie, I'm not really crazy, just paranoid a little ; Well maybe more than a little. Best, M

Mech, How can one be "just peranoid a little?" c.i.

It's easy they are all 'tiny little people' watching him from behind every tree!

Further explanation,

You see, If a photon is "attracted" (I hate that) to a massive object by gravity it would imply that a photon has mass. This observation has generally been accepted.

Or if a photon is travelling a straight line in curved spacetime then it would perhaps imply inertia thus again implying mass.

If the 1/2 painted card (discussed earlier) spins this again implies inertia and subsequently mass.

If the "Einstein Cross" turns out to possibly just be a "beam of light" with the center occluded then I am going to cry. This business of separating biases and perceptions from observations is turning out rougher than I had hoped it would be. Even with about six of us working on it.

Frank, I have given Ican a reasonable (IMO) definition of a pervasive intelligence that could (underline could) have populated the Earth, Universe, Cosmos. It probably has existed as long as the aforementioned entities have. And probably will exist as long as they do.
I have sincerely looked also. I stretched my imagination to the breaking point and that was the best I could do without more evidence.

Since I am able to describe it it is probably not any sort of god. I have noticed that as soon as you attempt to describe a god they tend to get very blurry. But there may well be a non-divine intelligence out there somewhere. And there may well not be.
Another ambiguity. . It's getting worse and worse

BoGoWo and CI,

Not every tree, only about 10% of them actually have a little mind behind them

They're very clever though. As soon as I try to describe them they disappear. Thats why I can't show them to you as much as I would like to be able to. :wink:

Awe shucks! I thought we were finally going to see something of significance on A2K. LOL c.i.

It's OK mech:
i see them all the time!

BoGoWo,
That proves that they must be real (whatever that is) and not just perceptual(whatever that is). :wink:

Reality is getting harder and harder to find.

Are we in the forest yet?

Can't tell. These goddam trees are blocking my view.

Is it reality when we see those trees?

It is really hard to tell if it is really real; that is really reality!

Uh...hi...im new to this thread!

definition of god
Ican, what is wrong with using the dictionary definition of god?

Merriam-Webster:

American Heritage:

If we don't limit god to the Judeo-Christian concept (the God of definition 1), a deity must have:

1. supernatural attributes
2. supernatural power
3. worship
4. control

By this definition, keyboards and other natural objects are not gods. Human beings are not gods. The physical universe is not god. God need not be omni-anything, but must have supernatural control over the reality we perceive, and it must take an interest in human affairs.

My personal definition is that God is some kind of intelligent spirit, force, and/or being that caused the universe and life to exist, cares about the lives of some human beings, and has the ability to override the physical laws by which the universe operates on their behalf - and may do so if beseeched or bribed by them.

If such a god exists, I have no explanation for where it came from, what its purpose is, why it would create diseases, parasites, poisonous snakes, psychopaths and other evils (or allow them to evolve unchecked), or why it would want to be worshiped by ignorant people.

It seems more likely to me that there is no god, the universe has no purpose, and that beliefs in supreme beings evolved to give meaning to our lives and control over the overwhelming forces of nature.

Mech, click on "gravitational lensing" under this photo for a diagram:
Einstein cross

Here are some more rings, arcs and crosses:
other gravitational lensing photos

You won't get the same effect by shining a light on a BB.

Terry's quote: "It seems more likely to me that there is no god, the universe has no purpose, and that beliefs in supreme beings evolved to give meaning to our lives and control over the overwhelming forces of nature." I agree with your conclusions. Nature is the only constant. c.i.

Re: definition of god


I don't know (my unwarranted guess is that OOU = God.). As I have repeatedly posted here:

I DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT VALID DATA TO WARRANT A GUESS WHAT THE VALID DEFINITION OF GOD IS.

Consequently, I cannot find anything wrong with the Merriam-Webster definition of God, the American Heritage definition of God, or your personal definition of God.

Does anyone have any sufficiently valid data to warrant thinking any one of the three definitions in Terry's post is valid?

Does anyone have any sufficiently valid data to warrant thinking that any one of the three God's defined in Terry's post does exist or does not exist?

Hi Red;

are you a fly on the wall, or participant; nice BIG subject!

Terry;
I was somewhat relieved by your "It seems more likely to me that there is no god, the universe has no purpose, and that beliefs in supreme beings evolved to give meaning to our lives and control over the overwhelming forces of nature."

But why would you suggest that any positive meaning or control could be derived from fantasy?

I smell a NIHILIST!

Your olfactory sense is active this evening!