In a new study called "Godless in the Great White North,” published in the Journal of Religion and Health, Speed looked at data from a Canadian Community Health Survey and found that atheists may be just as healthy as devoted believers.

“If you compare the health outcomes for those two groups,” Speed said, “they are really similar to each other”.

Atheists, he said, are different from agnostics, who are different from the religiously unaffiliated, or so-called nones. And some of the benefits of being a part of a church or other faith group — including social support and behavioral rules that can be beneficial — aren’t exclusively religious.

Religious people, for example, are less likely to drink heavily or use drugs, because their religious beliefs discourage those activities. But other groups also discourage drug and alcohol use, he said, pointing to the so-called Straight Edge movement that began among punk rockers in the 1980s.

Some people — include Speed himself — simply aren’t interested in using those substances. Whatever the motivation, these groups see abstaining from alcohol and drugs as important.

“The religious framing is irrelevant,” he said.

Many of the benefits of religion are also linked to stronger social support networks. That is one area where religiously active people do have an advantage over atheists.

“One thing that religion does really well is facilitating social networks,” he said. “If you go to services, you are building a social support network.”

By contrast, he added, “there isn’t the same support structure for atheists.”

Still, it’s important to be clear that the health and well-being benefits are linked to faith groups’ social support, not spiritual belief, said Speed.

In some cases, belief in God might actually be bad for your health, particularly when that belief is shaky. A 2020 study on published in the Review of Religious Research found that “doubting theists” — those who believe in God but are less certain about those beliefs — reported poorer health outcomes.

Because of the growth of the nones in the United States, researchers on that study wanted to look more closely at subgroups in that population. They separated out self-identified atheists and then divided the remaining unaffiliated theists into two groups: “theistic nones,” who had a strong belief in God, and “doubting theists,” who were less certain in their beliefs. Then they looked at health outcomes for the latter two groups.

“The results suggest that the level of certainty in beliefs about God or a higher power are an important factor among religious nones for predicting health outcomes,” according to the study.

America’s changing religious landscape — in which about 1 in 4 Americans identify as nones — will present challenges in the future. As organized religion declines, researchers are asking what will fill that social void.

“The challenge for secular individuals is to think consciously and seriously about where they will find community — and organize accordingly,” said Baker.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/global/2021/03/04/being-godless-might-be/

First of all, what's with the Jesus looking like he's doing a stint on RuPaul's Drag Race? Got a kick out of that.


And then this from the article, "People who regularly attend services are less likely to smoke, may be less likely to use drugs or be obese and may live longer than those who don’t attend services." (Lotta "may's" there making the whole premise kind of iffy.)

Not likely to be obese? Geez Louise! Are you kidding?
Anybody had a look around Utah or any of the rest of ultra religious America?


Also this Baker makes a lot of assumptions about atheists and their social lives and social support. He's projecting I would say. Big time. Trying to seem benevolent like he's giving advice while actually just highlighting how "lonely it is to be an atheist." Ha ha and ha.

Not hard to find a study that says what you want it. New one in the paper every day.

A guy named speed did a health study ?

It was that or paint his house for the third time.

When I skimmed the article, the question I have is what about people who are BOTH atheistic AND "religious"?

These people have existed in Judaism for at least about 2,500 years (if I am remembering my Jewish history correctly; I am in the midst of doing something right now and I can't look it up)....and the same situation would be true for Hinduism (and possibly Buddhism?--and probably Native American religions as well).

I do absolutely agree that community can be critical when it comes to mental and physical health. However: community may have not so much to do with "belief," but rather have a considerable lot to do with practice (community get-togethers on religious holidays, home rituals, etc.).

^ This is a spectacular post.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ This is a spectacular post.

Thank you!

True.
Many Jews are atheist or pantheist, like Ellie Weisel and Einstein/Spinoza. My ExMo Son converted to Judaism and benefits from the community in ways I really have not been able to find in real life, as a pantheist. It’s not like there are any Pantheist groups out there. I find community more through art, music and dancing now, or at least prior to pandemic.
Most of the people I associate with are either not religious or atheist or ExMos. I have an atheist BIL going through chemotherapy right now for Leukemia. His wife, my Mormon Sister, asked us to pray for him, knowing I am a Pantheist..
I told her I didn’t believe in a personal God who answers prayers, and neither did he, but that I do believe in Einstein’s god and providence and I’d pray for providence to heal him.
She just thanked me and said Amen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2021 06:55PM by schrodingerscat.

Wow.

...he could have said all that in his opening post monologue...

But at least he didn't start a new thread in order to divulge how ... whatever he is, he is.

And keep in mind, the info isn't for us, the Old Guard, but for the new people, coming here today for the first time, trying to make their way out from where they are to where they're going.

What would you have given for this kind of input when you were first having doubts, when your shelf was first beginning to creak?

If I'd first encountered the overall oeuvre when younger, I'd probably have suffered less harm from the whiplash.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2021 07:51PM by Lot's Wife.

"Move oeuvre, baby, and let daddy drive!"

--Jake Peckenpaugh, in "Daytona Beach Flip-Flops Flapping"

"Move oeuvre, Rover, and let Jimmy take oeuvre."

--Eric clapton's cover of Norwegian Wood





*Apologies for dropping your other joke.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2021 08:24PM by Lot's Wife.

> Apologies for dropping
> your other joke

Hey, some times an attempt to be funny ... No Va

That is a very notable observation.

On a different topic, now that we've established that atheism is actually a positive thing, do we need to adjust any of the divine formulae?*

Maybe a sign change or two? How about replacing lambda with a less pretentious Greek character like Thetis?**



*I hope Dorothy approves.

**No, not theta you ignoramus!

Beta Theta Pi never even gave me a first look...


I've been listening to YouTube talks about the Cosmological Constant.

Turns out the people on YouTube do not preach the same doctrine in re the Cosmological Constant as The Cat. Even in the comments, no one has brought up "...the equal sign is ghawd..."

I think The Cat is a Great Attractor of BS.

That is so last Tuesday!

Don't you know that we are now on an "atheism is healthy" kick? (See OP.) So the equal sign is now a symbol for atheism.

It's a bit like racial preferences. One day affirmative action is good, the next it's a violation of King's dream!

I'm not sure Scat realizes how blatantly he contradicts himself, but I guess consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Yours, in the spirit of divine atheism,

Gladys Lott, Chief Nurse, Department of Deviant Psychology, S&G Regional Hospital

I am beginning to suspect that EOD had a TCHevy Nova low rider with welded chain steering wheel in 1972. For religious purposes, only.

I'm retired so I am not slave to the calendar!

Might want to consult more better sources than YouTube.

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html

https://www.livescience.com/solution-to-worst-prediction-in-physics.html

https://books.google.com/books/about/Einstein_s_Greatest_Blunder.html?id=OoXvAAAAMAAJ

Thank you!

Let's compare...

From your first source: "Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant usually symbolized by the greek letter "lambda" (Λ), as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract. Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion.

"Friedmann, a Russian mathematician, realized that this was an unstable fix, like balancing a pencil on its point, and proposed an expanding universe model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological constant term as his "greatest mistake".

"Many cosmologists advocate reviving the cosmological constant term on theoretical grounds. Modern field theory associates this term with the energy density of the vacuum. For this energy density to be comparable to other forms of matter in the universe, it would require new physics: the addition of a cosmological constant term has profound implications for particle physics and our understanding of the fundamental forces of nature.

"The main attraction of the cosmological constant term is that it significantly improves the agreement between theory and observation. The most spectacular example of this is the recent effort to measure how much the expansion of the universe has changed in the last few billion years.

"Generically, the gravitational pull exerted by the matter in the universe slows the expansion imparted by the Big Bang. Very recently it has become practical for astronomers to observe very bright rare stars called supernova in an effort to measure how much the universal expansion has slowed over the last few billion years. Surprisingly, the results of these observations indicate that the universal expansion is speeding up, or accelerating! While these results should be considered preliminary, they raise the possibility that the universe contains a bizarre form of matter or energy that is, in effect, gravitationally repulsive. The cosmological constant is an example of this type of energy. Much work remains to elucidate this mystery."


I think I understood a good deal of that! Which is in contrast to my attempts to understand this:

"God is the equals in E=mc2

"There's a reason Energy equals Mass sped up faster than the speed of light, and that Energy slowed down by the speed of light squared equals mass, because we live in a super symmetrical universe, where Dark Energy + Dark Matter = Lambda, the cosmological constant
= 1
in this universe
with a singularity at its center
A black hole
Continually spinning, radiating energy
equal to the mass it attracts
On its way to the Great Attractor
in a continual, eternal cycle of destruction and creation."



"Your honor, the prosecution will now rest while the defense chews the curtains."

Your second source may even make you look even more out of touch!

"The cosmological constant [or dark energy] currently constitutes about 70% of the energy content in our universe, which is what we can infer from the observed accelerated expansion that our universe is presently undergoing. Yet this constant is not understood," Lombriser said. "Attempts to explain it have failed, and there seems to be something fundamental that we are missing in how we understand the cosmos. Unraveling this puzzle is one of the major research areas in modern physics. It is generally anticipated that resolving the issue may lead us to a more fundamental understanding of physics."

This source that you provided says "...this constant is not understood. Attempts to explain it have failed..."


"Lucy, you gotta lot of 'splaining to do...!"

Wait till you check the third source, which is an advertisement.

But if the spirit of Dog is with you, you just understand.

But at least it was consistent with his other two sources:

"When Albert Einstein confronted a cosmological contradiction, in 1917, his solution was to introduce a new term, the "cosmological constant." For a time, this mathematical invention solved discrepancies between his model and the best observations available, but years later Einstein called it the "greatest blunder" of his career.

"And yet the cosmological constant is still alive today--it is one of the "fudge factors" employed by cosmologists to make their calculations fit the observational data. Theoretical cosmologists continually reshape their models in an honest (if sometimes futile) effort to explain apparent chaos as cosmic harmony--whether their specific concern is the age and expansion rate of the cosmos, hot versus cold "dark matter," the inflationary theory of the big bang, the explanation of large-scale structure, or the density and future of the universe."


But nothing I've found on my own or been referred to has ruled out the possible utility of "the equal sign is ghawd". There may come a time when this will be useful!

Why don't you do this with Jordan or CC or the others who play fast and loose with sources and facts?

Take an occasional load off my narrow but dainty shoulders, won't you?

Those worthies whom you mention are political. I don't have the skill set to deal with differences in made up sincere opinions.

The Cat points at the blue sky and says, "Pink! because it gets him attention. Who wouldn't what to take a shot at that?

Is Jordan back?

I think that sensing his presence is something that can only be noted by those with more complex turns of mind. I am not included in that select company. I don't think my brain has the minimum number of folds required.

I bask in the sun and make mudpies.

Jordan returns to enlighten us almost every day, often with two or three different usernames. His topical fixations, inimitable writing style and vocabulary and a few other idiosyncrasies render him identifiable with a high (but not perfect) degree of accuracy.

It's hard to remember his usernames since there are so very many, but he was around for a bright shining moment yesterday with a name like Khalifa Mohammed. There was also a time in a thread that is still available when three or four different new posters appeared and argued the same points with the same vocabulary. At one point I mentioned that Jordan likes to use Google Translate to make himself look multilingual, and almost exactly a day later another new name appears written in Greek characters that translates into Eleutheria, which is the name of a play by Samuel Beckett. That sort of play on words is vintage, if transparent, Jordan.


https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2361474,2361607#msg-2361607

So yes, nary a day goes by when we are not blessed with a visit from the spectral Red China-baiter.

Is this "Jordan" you refer to Randy Jordan?

No idea.

We refer to Jordan because that was the username that he used primarily for many years. He also posted as HWint and used sometimes to make an argument in one name and then applaud it in another. He still does that frequently but with constantly changing monikers.

But I have no sense of, or interest in, in his IRL identity.

Since my last post was unacceptable to the mods, I shall adopt a more moderated stance. Randy Jordan was a strident TBM until he became a strident non-TBM. In all cases he is an opinionated, loud-mouthed, self-righteous person. He left RFM a couple of years ago in a huff for having his opinions challenged. It's personal with me: he was the biggest PITA poster that my late wife had to deal with as moderator on srm.

Forgive me, but what is srm?

I don't know if the identity holds. The fact that your post was deleted suggests perhaps it does.

What I do know is that Jordan was posting here around seven years ago, then disappeared for a while (probably posting as Hwint and some others) before coming back a couple of years ago. When I pointed out information from some of his first round of posts, those posts disappeared into the ether and he started telling a different story about himself. So he has been here for a long time, which of course does not mean he wasn't simultaneously elsewhere.

Sorry to hear about your wife's passing. That must be very difficult.

Hi Lot's Wife,

srm = soc.religion.mormonism. It was a Usenet thing. It formed from the inability to have reasonable discussion about mormonism on alt.religion.mormonism. The key to srm was to add moderation. It was truly the Wild West on alt.*. Susan I/S has noted the number of seriously nasty trolls from arm that showed up here.

My wife became one of, I think 3, moderators on srm. I paid little attention to it. I was done with mormonism. Be that as it may, I can appreciate what CZ, Susan, Tevai and others go through here - I heard it first hand at the time. Thank you, thank you, Mods. I appreciate your work!

Whether "Jordan" is the Randy Jordan I heard too much about is unknown. I do have a pretty good read on RJ's personality, however. It's deplorable. If he's still posting under a barrage of different names, as would not be inconsistent with people who leave in a huff, then I would recommend vigilance.

Thanks for the information. I'm not of the vintage to know some of those details.

At first I thought you may have been combining two posters' names, people with some similar habits, as a joke. But I/we don't have any information about Jordan/Khalifa Mohamed/Hwint's real identity. We do exercise vigilance of a sort, more ridicule than anything more serious because humor is about all we plebes possess.

I do remember you from when you posted more frequently, though. it's nice to see you back.

This is the Randy Jordan who used to post here.
It doesn't sound like the troll Jordan.

http://www.salamandersociety.com/randyjordan/

Yeah, that's not the same guy. Our troll is Canadian, often slips into British idioms and spelling, and can't write three sentences without complaining about Red China, cultural Marxism, intersectionality, the war on cash, and pop culture. He actually uses the word "Fash."

So two different people.

Wait, there are people who use the word "fash" non-ironically? I'm getting too old for the Internet.

"There's a reason Energy equals Mass sped up faster than the speed of light..."

The problem here is that according to one of his idols, this isn't even possible. The theory of special relativity does not allow mass to exceed the speed of light.

It is like he knows the words, but doesn't understand what they mean.

How about General Relativity?

General relativity extends special relativity, but does not invalidate it. Special relativity was derived for inertial frames of reference (frames of reference moving at constant speed) while General relativity extends to non-inertial reference frames (frames that are accelerated- which is the same as having a gravitational field). So General relativity would not allow a mass to be accelerated beyond - or even to - the speed of light either.

To reach the speed of light would give the object an infinite mass. It would also take an infinite amount of energy input to get there.

That's what I thought. But it's been many years since I studied that stuff and I've forgotten enough to render me curious.

Thanks.

My memory of instruction in relativity back in the day is that neither special nor general relativity precludes the possibility of FTL particles. What they do preclude is accelerating particles (with mass) to c, much less superluminal.

True.
Relativity does not preclude the existnce of FTL particles (tachyons).
It does prohibit accelerating a particle from below the speed of light to, or above, the speed of light.
It also prohibits slowing a FTL particle down below the speed of light.

A recent overview of the current thinking in re Lambda, thee Cosmological Constant:

https://physicsworld.com/a-new-generation-takes-on-the-cosmological-constant/


I could see no connection between the materials covered therein (which even I could understand) and The Cat's version of the Cosmological Constant, for which I nominate Lame-da as it's shorthand notation.

But physics is so bland if you can't add a bit of homespun mystical salsa to it. Try this, for example: Energy equals mass sped up, with the equal sign being Cheech Marin sliding down the leading edge of the bell-shaped curve toward a pungent haze-filled Great Attractor. Snoop Dog might be meeting him there.

Brian Green explains why "Einstein's greatest blunder explains one of the greatest scientific revelations" here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcJTKKCtAiI

"Brian Greene, Columbia University physicist explains how today's physicists and mathematicians use an Einsteinian formula to explain the universe that Einstein himself originally thought was false.

Following is a transcript of the video.

The amazing thing is that blunder in Einstein’s mind is something that we now believe describes the actual universe.

Einstein became Einstein really because of his discovery of the general theory of relativity in 1915. The core of it are the Einstein field equations. And that’s a set of equations that relate the curvature of spacetime to the amount of matter and energy moving through a region of spacetime.

Interesting when Einstein applied theses equations to the entire universe, he found a result that he wasn’t happy with. He found that the universe could not be static and unchanging. It had to be either stretching or contracting.

And he said, “no.” The universe is clearly static and eternal. So what did he do? He went back to the equations. Put in one more term. On the left hand side he put in lambda. Lambda is what’s called the cosmological constant. He called it the cosmological member. And what it does is it can kind of give an outward push that can stabilize the inward pull of gravity, resulting in a static universe. And then Einstein was happy. Right?

But then in 1929 we learn that the universe is expanding and Einstein says,

Ugh, I wish I would not have put that term in.

Because my equations predicted that the universe is expanding and I would have gotten there 12 years before the observations. Today the amazing thing is that blunder in Einstein’s mind is something that we now believe describes the actual universe.

Because when we found that the accelerated expansion is happening, we want something that can push everything apart. What can do that? Einstein’s cosmological constant pushes things apart. We employ a different value. A different number than Einstein would have thought. But the idea is exactly what Einstein came up with.

Even Einstein’s bad ideas wind up being pretty darn good."

Like he said in the video I linked to above, Einstein's original equation, that included Lambda, the cosmological Constant, turned out to be right and about equal to Dark Energy.

This article in Forbes explains it great and has some great graphs that show it clearly, over time.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/12/25/ask-ethan-is-einsteins-cosmological-constant-the-same-as-dark-energy/?sh=221642874636

The whole idea that the equals sign in E=mc2 is what we call god, is my idea. I never attributed that to anybody else and I've never seen it attributed to anybody else. It's just something that occurred to me when I heard what Brian Green said about one of the greatest scientific revelations, ever, being what Einstein called his Greatest Blunder, supposedly. In any case, he removed Lambda from his original equation because otherwise it would have created a static universe.
It's the greatest fudge factor ever,
yet, now it turns out to fit with our current model of the universe. So he was right, just for the wrong reason.
The universe wasn't static.
But he knew it couldn't be, based upon what they could see at the time. Back then, 100 years ago, all they could see was our galaxy. They thought the size of the universe was the size of our Milky Way. Now we have multiple telescopes in space and super computers that can put together maps like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo
That can tell us exactly where we are in the universe, and where we're going, (towards the Great Attractor) and how fast, (1.4million MPH) and where our neighbors are moving. Now we see that all the galaxies in our neighborhood, are moving together, towards a great center, "The Great Attractor".
So not only is the galaxy Expanding, it's also converging on the same point in space, the Great Attractor.
That's the cosmological constant.
That's gravity.
That's what we call god.

Sagan's god.

“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.” Carl Sagan

No, but how about praying to the Great Attractor?
Or God Particle?
Or just God, short for God Particle, since it's more of a universal field responsible for creating everything that matters?
That probably doesn't matter either and doesn't change anything, but intention does.
Setting intentions.
I have a brother in law, who's like a brother to me, in the hospital right now going through Chemo Treatments for Leukemia. He is an atheist and my sister asked us to pray for him.
But who or what do I pray to? Nature?
That's what's killing him right now.
We're un-natural animals living in a world that is full of death and pain and suffering and we're trying to hang on as best we can. We radiate, medicate, operate and fight like hell to stay alive. We Crispr cells to operate on DNA to cure a whole litany of diseases. We spend millions to keep a working, family man alive on this miserable planet.
For what?
So my sister and their son can live in paradise of his own making, in a passive solar house on the side of a South facing clearing on a hill on a little island overlooking the sea and the mountains, not another human being in sight as far as the eye can see. Just trees, water, Volcanos and wildlife everywhere. Where he has built his sanctuary, his love letter to his wife and family, written in stone, carved out of the hillside, gardens full of the sweet fruit of his labors. A self sufficient life surrounded by nature, but protected from too much nature.
Too much exposure to the radiation, that will cook you daily, slowly. If you do not take shelter.
So back to what do I pray to on my Brother's behalf?
I pray to god, which to me is the same as nature, combined with science, combined with philosophy and Cosmology, mainly Einstein's cosmology, but updated to take into account, what we can see written in the sky and our DNA, thanks to space telescopes and electron microscopes and DNA testing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2021 05:00PM by schrodingerscat.

Non sequitur. Still nothing about God.

> This article in Forbes explains
> it great and has some great
> graphs that show it clearly,
≥ over time


I didn't see anything on ghawd being the equal sign... Very disappointed.

I added this part for you,

The whole idea that the equals sign in E=mc2 is what we call god, is my idea. I never attributed that to anybody else and I've never seen it attributed to anybody else. It's just something that occurred to me when I heard what Brian Green said about one of the greatest scientific revelations, ever, being what Einstein called his Greatest Blunder, supposedly. In any case, he removed Lambda from his original equation because otherwise it would have created a static universe.
It's the greatest fudge factor ever,
yet, now it turns out to fit with our current model of the universe. So he was right, just for the wrong reason.
The universe wasn't static.
But he knew it couldn't be, based upon what they could see at the time. Back then, 100 years ago, all they could see was our galaxy. They thought the size of the universe was the size of our Milky Way. Now we have multiple telescopes in space and super computers that can put together maps like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo
That can tell us exactly where we are in the universe, and where we're going, (towards the Great Attractor) and how fast, (1.4million MPH) and where our neighbors are moving. Now we see that all the galaxies in our neighborhood, are moving together, towards a great center, "The Great Attractor".
So not only is the Universe Expanding, all of our neighbors in the universe, like our closest neighbor, Andromeda, are also converging on the same point in space, the Great Attractor.
That's the cosmological constant.
That's gravity.
That's what we call god.

Sagan's god.

“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.” Carl Sagan

No, but how about praying to the Great Attractor?
Or God Particle?
Or just god, short for God Particle, since it's more of a universal field responsible for creating everything that matters?
That probably doesn't matter either and doesn't change anything, but intention does.
Setting intentions.
I have a brother in law, who's like a brother to me, in the hospital right now going through Chemo Treatments for Leukemia. He is an atheist and my sister asked us to pray for him.
But who or what do I pray to? Nature?
That's what's killing him right now.
We're un-natural animals living in a world that is full of death and pain and suffering and we're trying to hang on as best we can. We radiate, medicate, operate and fight like hell to stay alive. We Crispr cells to operate on DNA to cure a whole litany of diseases. We spend millions to keep a working, family man alive on this miserable planet.
For what?
So my sister and their son can live in paradise of his own making, in a passive solar house on the side of a South facing clearing on a hill on a little island overlooking the sea and the mountains, not another human being in sight as far as the eye can see. Just trees, water, Volcanos and wildlife everywhere. Where he has built his sanctuary, his love letter to his wife and family, written in stone, carved out of the hillside, gardens full of the sweet fruit of his labors. A self sufficient life surrounded by nature, but protected from too much nature.
Too much exposure to the radiation, that will cook you daily, slowly. If you do not take shelter.
So back to what do I pray to on my Brother's behalf?
I pray to god, which to me is the same as nature, combined with science/philosophy and Cosmology, mainly Einstein's cosmology, but updated to take into account, what we can see written in the sky and our DNA, thanks to space telescopes and electron microscopes and DNA testing.
The same god as Michio Kaku's god,

That'd https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2021 05:11PM by schrodingerscat.

> The whole idea that the equals sign
> in E=mc2 is what we call god, is my
> idea. I never attributed that to
> anybody else and I've never seen it
> attributed to anybody else.


The issue surrounding 'god is the equal sign in E=MChammer' revolves around your implication that it meant something.

Obviously, I LOVE made-up things! Why couldn't you have told us sooner? The implication I got was that I was even more of a moron than usual for not understanding your presentation.

It appeared that you were taking credit for presenting us with bombshell information and that at least some (Kaku, especially) were totally on-board with.

You were acting as if anyone who disagreed with your presentations was mentally deficient! How many nights did I cry myself to sleep? Seriously, that's a question. Give me (the whole office) your best guess.

You type SO MUCH and say SO LITTLE!

I really like Maxwell. How do he and his equations fit in to all of this?

And God said, let there be light!

Hahahaha. Should've seen that coming.

I was once on the MIT campus and bought a T-shirt at the gift shop that led with Maxwell's equations followed by a declarative,

"Let There Be Light!"

I'll bet BoJ built his whole wardrobe around those shirts.

Perhaps sheepishly, I admit to have had one. Integral form originally. I later got one differential form. In my defense, my master was in physics.

See? There are so very many smart, educated people in this community.

I think the integral equations are more impressive than the differential ones--definitely better on a T-shirt, which is what really matters!

Mr. The Cat,

No one is disputing any of the people whom you love to quote.

This kerfuffle centers on this, your personal presentation to us:


"God is the equals in E=mc2

"There's a reason Energy equals Mass sped up faster than the speed of light, and that Energy slowed down by the speed of light squared equals mass, because we live in a super symmetrical universe, where Dark Energy + Dark Matter = Lambda, the cosmological constant
= 1
in this universe
with a singularity at its center
A black hole
Continually spinning, radiating energy
equal to the mass it attracts
On its way to the Great Attractor
in a continual, eternal cycle of destruction and creation."


If you would just say something along the lines of, "Hey, I pulled that from outen my butt hole, and I like the way it sounds, so sue me!" Obviously, I personally would be rooting for you! But no...

Instead, you imply that we're all morons for not getting on-board with you and your railway car full of the noted physicists and all-around good guys you routinely hang out with...


<sniff> you make us feel dumb...


But anyway, this: "Lambda, the cosmological constant = 1" You have typed this out a number of times...

Wikipedia's attempt to explain the Cosmological Constant never once put "Lambda" on one side of \ghawd/ and "1" on the other.

"1" is a fixed value. Which would have two Lambdas = 2. And so on. Are you saying that physicists see '1' and have to ask themselves, 'does this mean one, or does it refer to the Cosmological Constant? I gotz ta know!'

So, was that also something you made up? If you did, I already have an idea as to why, so no worries there.

Thank you for your time.

The exact number for the cosmological constant, Lambda, is not settled, it could be equal to Dark Matter, 70% of the universe, or +/- 1.
But our current model of the universe, includes the worlds largest fudge factor, Lambda,
Which equals Dark energy and Dark Matter,
because, otherwise we’d be off by 95%

So okay, more fudging away.

At least you're admitting that your "Lambda, the Cosmological Constant = 1" is inaccurate.

But you won't stop being a ninny!

"The exact number for the cosmological constant, Lambda, is not settled, it could be equal to Dark Matter, 70% of the universe, or +/- 1."



Now contrast your verbiage with dumbass Wikipedia...

"There are two major advantages for the cosmological constant. The first is that it is simple. Einstein had in fact introduced this term in his original formulation of general relativity such as to get a static universe. Although he later discarded the term after Hubble found that the universe is expanding, a nonzero cosmological constant can act as dark energy, without otherwise changing the Einstein field equations.

"The other advantage is that there is a natural explanation for its origin. Most quantum field theories predict vacuum fluctuations that would give the vacuum this sort of energy. This is related to the Casimir effect, in which there is a small suction into regions where virtual particles are geometrically inhibited from forming (e.g. between plates with tiny separation).

"A major outstanding problem is that the same quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant, more than 100 orders of magnitude too large. This would need to be almost, but not exactly, canceled by an equally large term of the opposite sign. Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which does not help because supersymmetry must be broken. Also, it is unknown if there is a metastable vacuum state in string theory with a positive cosmological constant."



I have no problem admitting that this is way beyond me. You have no problem claiming you understand it all, despite never seeming to come up with language that would serve to confirm it.

You've scanned sources and copied data, but I have no problem doubting you comprehend it. My guess is that you're a poseur. I thought this might be the case, and I'm satisfied that you've proven it.

Go in peace, Kori/Cat. It hasn't been fun, but it needed doing.