…and this is a 
We atheists are done for now. Behold, the God Equation, which I received in email and proves that a deity created us all:
Scientists working in the UK have discovered robust evidence that the creation of the earth and moon was a deliberate act. The researchers found that the earth, moon, and beyond were engineered according to a specific equation. They have dubbed it the God Equation. The equation, which looks like this:
shows a constant, unchanging relationship between the speed of light, the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle, and the radio frequency of hydrogen in space. Artificial intelligence engineer David Cumming, CEO of the Edinburgh-based company Intelligent Earth, recently discovered the equation, and said: "I am a scientist and as such I didn't at first really believe it myself. But physics is physics, and maths is maths, and you can't argue with it."
The discovery of the equation began with research by engineer Professor Alexander Thom (1894-1985) of Oxford University, into the properties of megalithic constructions such as Stonehenge. He found that their construction did not follow existing measurement systems, but did fit in to a pattern of specific lengths which he called megalithic yards. Two independent researchers Christopher Knight and Alan Butler, based in York, then showed that the megalithic system of measurement was directly derived from characteristics of the Earth's movements through space.
Linking this system of measurements with known constants such as π (pi, the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle), Hl, the radio frequency of the hydrogen fine transition in space, Ω (0.0123456789 representing all the characters of the base 10 number system), and the speed of light in a vacuum C0 (C0 = 299,792.458km/sec), and building on research by Knight and Butler, and the work of Professor Alexander Thom, former Reading University doctoral researcher Cumming followed a research programme that resulted in his discovery of the God Equation. The God Equation shows a direct link between the speed of light, the radio frequency of hydrogen in space, pi, and earth's orbit, rotation and weight. As the possibility of the Earth having the exact required characteristics to fit the equation by chance is remote, and the equation has, in theory, been in existence since the beginning of the Universe, this means that the Earth's orbit, rotation and weight must have been engineered to fit this equation.
Cumming states: "Although the ratio of a diameter of a circle to its circumference has been known for thousands of years, we have only recently discovered the hydrogen line, the speed of light, and rediscovered the megalithic measurement system. The advance of science, combined with the uncovering of ancient knowledge passed down through the ages, has only now made the discovery of the God Equation possible."
Well, overwhelming, except for a few little problems.
For instance, the term Hl has units of MHz; the other parameters seem to be dimensionless; and C has units of km/sec. This does not compute. That seems like a rather fundamental error in a very simple equation that must have been formulated by a couple of the geniuses of the age, don't you think?
Oh, wait…there's that mysterious Ω term — maybe we're just missing its units. Except…"0.0123456789 representing all the characters of the base 10 number system". Oh, come on. I call shenanigans on that one. That's completely arbitrary and contrived.
How do you get earth's orbit, rotation, and weight from π?
So I plugged in all those numbers anyway, and did the calculation works out to a value for C of 361,448.9 MHz. This is a bit off.
Oh, but there's more! There's a footnote to the email I was sent that mentions that you have to calculate the speed of light in megalithic yards, derived by some esoteric calculation from the dimensions of Stonehenge. A megalithic yard = 0.82966 meters, which then gets you to the right number for the speed of light.
Not bad for a formula with three terms, one of which is pulled out of someone's ass, and the whole thing requiring a magic fudge factor to bring it into line with neolithic technology.
In case you're wondering who could be crazy and ignorant enough to propose this kind of nonsense, the mail included a handy set of bios for them.
David Cumming is an innovative scientist working in the field of artificial intelligence. A former PhD student of famous Professor Kevin Warwick at Reading University, England, David is also a graduate of Glasgow University, and Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen. At Robert Gordon University, he was awarded a rare MSc with Distinction for his work on a NASA space shuttle microgravity experiment that flew as a full canister experiment on the Space Shuttle Endeavour.
David was also leader of the Intelligent Earth team that developed the world's first advertising system that changes advertising according to the gender and age of the person watching the advert - a technology that removes unwanted and annoying advertising and makes advertising appropriate to the watchers. The company also developed Doki, 'the World's most gender aware robot, featuring in the Guinness Book of World Records for several years'
He is also the CEO of Safe Cities, who developed a prize-winning intelligent custody photography system in collaboration with ACPO's Facial Images National Database (FIND) Project and several large Police Forces. These systems are now installed around Britain as an important front end of the National Database.Christopher Knight's background is in research. From 1976 he investigated the origins of the rituals used by Freemasons before publishing his first book on the subject in 1996. 'The Hiram Key' became an immediate international best seller selling over a million copies and is now in 37 different languages. This was followed by several other bestsellers chronicling his investigations that were taking him further and further back in time. In 1997 he teamed up with Alan Butler to continue his researches, which had taken him back to the late Stone Age. Following in the footsteps of engineer Professor Alexander Thom, Knight and Butler have reconstructed a complete system of measurement that was used in the British Isles and western France 5,000 years ago. These systems, still identifiable in existing artefacts, were more sophisticated than modern units of measure, although both the Imperial and metric systems have evolved directly from this Neolithic origin.
Alan Butler's historical studies extend to an in-depth research into the Cistercian monastic movement and the Order of the Knights Templar, about which he has also written extensively. As a professional writer, who has always possessed an absolute fascination for history, Alan set out on a two decade search that led to the unravelling of some of the most important details regarding prehistoric knowledge and achievement in Europe. Alan has also been writing on the subject of astrology since his 20's and is the most published writer on the subject in Britain.
Crackpots all across the spectrum.
Comments
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
December 4, 2009 10:05 PM
My first thought when I saw that equation was "What the fuck is Ω?"
Posted by: Finback | December 4, 2009 10:05 PM
Amazingly, I've been able to divide the number of Transformers toys I owned in 1992 by the cubic root of my age, then multiplied it by the distance travelled by my car in kilometres, then divided it by the square of the number of girlfriends I've had - the result turns out to be the exact same number as my date of birth expressed in binary multiplied by my last income tax payment!
QED I'm God.
Posted by: R. Schauer | December 4, 2009 10:06 PM
Let's see, evidence of gawd = 0 ...what else did you say, PZ?
Posted by: Ian O'Neill
|
December 4, 2009 10:07 PM
"...one of which is pulled out of someone's ass..." - I think this is commonly referred to as Asscrackpottery, a sub-class of Crackpottery where wingnuts discuss how ancient civilizations "knew it all."
This equation is pure gold.
Posted by: H.H. | December 4, 2009 10:07 PM
In other words, they found a relationship between a few numbers pulled from nature at random...therefore god.I'm convinced. I mean, I was an atheist, except I learned that the width of my desk measured in dollars bills is exactly half my age if adjusted up by the number of nieces and nephews I have. I didn't really believe it myself at first. But physics is physics, and maths is maths, and you can't argue with it. I call my discovery the "Idiot Equation," because anyone who thinks it proves intelligent agency is an idiot.
Posted by: Fiziker
|
December 4, 2009 10:07 PM
Give him some credit, at least it's more original than exp(iπ) = -1. Then again, at least the Euler identity is true.
Posted by: or-mabinogi
|
December 4, 2009 10:07 PM
I couldn't wade through the whole thing. But I have to point out they only have half the equation. There's no 'alpha' constant. Doesn't the "Good Book" say he's the alpha and the omega?
Or did I miss something by zoning out and becoming unable to read the whole thing?
Posted by: piesquared | December 4, 2009 10:07 PM
Ah, good to know that the entire universe has a nice anthropocentric, base-10 bias.
Or more likely the people who wrote that email had no idea that base-10 is pretty much arbitrary as far as numbering systems go (except possibly from a human (10-fingered) perspective).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 10:08 PM
I can make up equations too
3*Ώ = X
Where Ώ = Crackpot
and x = load of shit
Posted by: NoFear
|
December 4, 2009 10:09 PM
Whadya know, I plugged that equation into my ass and out came the same equation! I guess that makes my ass divine too!
Posted by: Rorschach | December 4, 2009 10:10 PM
What does the radio frequency of Hydrogen in space have to do with "engineering" the moon ?
Just a styled-up variation of the fine-tuning argument, really.
Seems appropriate.
Posted by: eddie
|
December 4, 2009 10:12 PM
Now do it in cubits.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 4, 2009 10:15 PM
Not the entire universe, just God. We're in His Image and all that. Just imagine if it had been His Divine Will to make us in the image of Acanthostega instead...base-16 would be a pain in the ass!
Posted by: atomjack
|
December 4, 2009 10:17 PM
Well, now, THE most published astrologer in England? I'm sold. :rolleyes: feck, these guys...what do they get out of all the lies? Do they make big bux? What? I just don't get it. How do they shave themselves in the morning, looking at those lying essobees in the mirror?
Posted by: Dust | December 4, 2009 10:22 PM
NoFear claimed:
Dust leans back and peeks--Why yes, it is divine!
Posted by: Rewarp | December 4, 2009 10:23 PM
This equation is too complex - irreducibly so.
God must be real.
/sarc
Posted by: Dust | December 4, 2009 10:25 PM
Does Depak know about this?
Posted by: Kyle Marquis | December 4, 2009 10:42 PM
Alright, they've got God, and they've got Stonehenge, but I think it needs some spice. I recommend adding Joseph of Arimathea, the Knights Templar, and/or the Secret Chiefs of the Third Order to really capture the "my brain is all messed up and can connect anything with anything" feel of this kind of argument.
Posted by: atomjack
|
December 4, 2009 10:43 PM
Actually, Sven, hexadecimal would have been easier for us then, since we would have had eight digits per "hand"- decimal is based on five fingers per "hand", for a total of ten.
Posted by: SEF | December 4, 2009 10:44 PM
As per the Aristocats, apparently everybody wants to be a
catscientist. Yet, from the blurb itself (and online info), those people seem to be engineers and a salesman-come-dodgy-historian etc rather than scientists. Much like the creationist "scientists" typically turn out to be lawyers, medics and theologians masquerading as scientists - at least in the minds of their followers.Posted by: speedweasel
|
December 4, 2009 10:47 PM
If he doesn't already, he will now. Don't you know he spends 4 hours of every day googling his own name?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 4, 2009 10:47 PM
But wait!
I just tried multiplying 0.123456789 by an approximation of pi, 3.14259 and the answer is, I shit you not:
I mean, c'mon. One Thirty Seven, baby. Probably the most inexplicable number of them all. It falls out in the strangest, and the most intimate, places. So maybe these guys are on to something seeing as this number has fallen out of their math
But how come they haven't trumpeted this very thing before? I can't possibly be the first to notice this amazing manifestation. After all, 137 just falls out and that must be designed before hand on purpose just to teach uppity fools like me to tend to their knitting and leave the rest of creation to the experts.
Maybe they are faithfully awaiting a more numinous, indeed vacuous and comforting, inspiration and just didn't know. About 137.
*teeheehee*
Posted by: outa work ee | December 4, 2009 10:51 PM
#13
Hexadecimal is to decimal as metric is to english.
SAE? American? Whatever this archaic system is called.
Computers love Hex, Oct, or Binary.
Posted by: plumberbob | December 4, 2009 10:55 PM
Let's just hold back for a while and see what happens when the fundis get a hold of it. We'll see whether they can tweek it to make it homogeneous, and therefore the mathematical basis for the "entropy" argument why evolution can't work.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
December 4, 2009 10:55 PM
Er...so the pagans who built Stonehenge proved god? Which one?
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
December 4, 2009 11:04 PM
Sixteen digits would have been a better base for us, even before computers came along. Look how natural it was to use ½, ¼ and ⅛ all the way up to 64ths on rulers.
___
Do biologists routinely do unit or dimensional analysis in their field? PZ, I'm impressed.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 4, 2009 11:06 PM
Everyone uses unit analysis.
Except crackpots.
Posted by: heironymous
|
December 4, 2009 11:06 PM
I always though phi was a better god-proof.
Then I thought it through...
Posted by: Rosie Redfield | December 4, 2009 11:14 PM
Well, everyone who really wants their calculations to be correct eventually learns to do dimensional analysis.
Posted by: JD | December 4, 2009 11:18 PM
I think this same equation is on Glenn Beck's sweater.
Posted by: Daniel de Rauglaudre
|
December 4, 2009 11:18 PM
No, God equation is :
Posted by: Samantha
|
December 4, 2009 11:20 PM
Maybe it's just me not knowing science well enough, but even if the equation weren't broken beyond belief, wouldn't it be more of the "X is required for Y to exist and therefore if Y exists, X must also exist" type of argument? Like "Earth must be this exact distance from the sun for life to exist so if life exists, Earth must be that distance from the sun." It doesn't do anything other than prove that if B exists and A is required for B to exist, A must exist.
I'm pretty sure they've tried this before and failed miserably.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 4, 2009 11:23 PM
uggh, no. metric rulers are much better and can be divided into smaller units than imperial unit rulersPosted by: Greg Fish | December 4, 2009 11:24 PM
That conversion between megalithic units and standard units says it all. Three fools pull a random formula out of nowhere, give it a fancy name and when it doesn't work out to the result they want, they're too lazy to change the other units or add a fudge factor for a coherent result.
Though how does coming up with a formula that gives you the speed of light in a vacuum mean that there's some sort of intelligence involved in the formation of the Earth and the Moon?
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
December 4, 2009 11:30 PM
Crudely, I'm going to have to call you on your heresy.
For vacuous inspiration, 377 is the approximately appropriate number. This is 119.9169832π Ω exactly, which proves my point. Your mileage will vary if the ampere gets redefined.
I trust you will react well to this and admit, even if reluctantly, that there is no reason to resist the superiority of 377.
Posted by: No BS | December 4, 2009 11:32 PM
"He found that their construction (Stonehedge) did not follow existing measurement systems"
No shit Sherlock...
Posted by: The Other Ian | December 4, 2009 11:34 PM
It must be true! That equation is accurate out to [b]3 whole digits[/b]!
Posted by: JM Inc. | December 4, 2009 11:34 PM
The famous Kevin Warwick, eh? So it seems that this dufus thinks his best crack at recognition is to ride on the coat-tails of Captain Cyborg of Media Hype (who at least has some legit research cred to his name), who, incidentally, would also happily tell you what a load of bollocks this all is?
Wow, I'm bowled over by the convincingness of this guy's credentials. Who needs peer review when you've got name recognition by proxy like this guy has?
Posted by: Fire | December 4, 2009 11:34 PM
I can't wait for Ray Comfort to gobble this one up like... like... a ripe banana.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
December 4, 2009 11:40 PM
So they discovered that a constant is related to another constant by - surprise, a constant, if you don't worry about the units.
That's convincing...
Posted by: Joffan | December 4, 2009 11:45 PM
I think these guys are trying to follow in the footsteps of L Ron Hubbard.
Posted by: Marcus | December 4, 2009 11:48 PM
That doesn't equal 42!
Posted by: Paul Hutch
|
December 4, 2009 11:51 PM
But the units do work out if you use the old system of units. Hz in the old system is cycles/sec, cycle races are in km, therefore cycles = km.
Wait it's megacycles, Lance Armstrong is a mega cyclist therefore Lance Armstrong is God!!!!
Posted by: Mobius | December 4, 2009 11:58 PM
I have come up with a unit of measure that I call the "Mobiustoe" that is the exact length of my right big toe.
Amazingly, my height, the diameter of Stonehenge, the diameter of the Earth and the distance to the Sun can all be measured in Mobiustoes.
This proves that I am fundamental to the measurements of the universe.
Of course, one has to ignore the fact that any arbitrary unit of length can be used to measure any length whatsoever.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 5, 2009 12:05 AM
Well that explains it. I was building a frame for a photo backdrop and i was measuring in inches when obviously it should have been in Mobiustoes.
Fuck
No wonder. That explains why ever ytime i tried to hang the backdrop my microwave started up.
Posted by: Satan | December 5, 2009 12:07 AM
Hmmm...
Hl⋅π∕&Omega=C
....
Why does that look so familiar?
Oh! I know! God, isn't that the transmetasuperhypermetadimensional communication coordinates of Your æther supplier? How the Hell did that leak out to the mortals?
Crosstalk?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 5, 2009 12:09 AM
JohnnieCauck, your challenge is accepted. I ran the numbers again and obtained the same result. I do not think the numbers lie.
Regardless, I do indeed happily accept your results which may, if I may, result from your only peripherally noticing the first three significant digits, 387. You may have noticed this deceptive sequence and were momentarily distracted by its seeming novelty. I know; happens to me all the time due to a slight dyslexia and a lazy right eye.
Isn't there a story about a famous physicist who lodged in room 137? Leo Slizard? Feynman?
Anyhow, I can see how the momentary notice of 387 might have registered as 377 in your mind. For other reasons 137 registers in mine.
How bout we call it 277 and go buy each other some beers?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 5, 2009 12:10 AM
*wonders if there is a Satan equation.
Posted by: Feynmaniac, OM | December 5, 2009 12:11 AM
Numerical coincidence or evidence of God?!
Less convincing than the Dirac large number hypothesis, which at least gets the units right.
Posted by: Tulse | December 5, 2009 12:13 AM
Am I right to think that when one's bio says
that really means that David didn't actually get a doctorate from Reading University under the famous Professor Kevin Warwick? Am I too suspicious from reading a plethora of tarted-up CVs, or is that a reasonable supposition based on the odd wording and the fact that Cumming does not call himself "Dr."? Is he really just a former grad student who failed to graduate?Posted by: Tim | December 5, 2009 12:13 AM
"uggh, no. metric rulers are much better and can be divided into smaller units than imperial unit rulers"
Only because it's base ten like our number system. If we counted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10, you can bet metric rules would be divided into eighths... err... octal tenths.
Posted by: God | December 5, 2009 12:17 AM
Must be. Stonehenge picks up some very weird stuff sometimes. A few years back I was hanging out there in order to mess with some Wiccans holding a fertility ritual, and the damn rocks suddenly started playing talk radio from a dimensional membrane 3000 universes away, from a planet of what sounded like methane-breathers.
Freaky.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 5, 2009 12:19 AM
You know, this whole thing would be over and done with if God just made it obvious that he/she/it/??? exists. That there was more than just interpretative nonsense, but an actual appearance. But no, we don't get that. Instead people interpret what they think is God's word and be shitty to others because of it. The greatest argument for atheism is the complete inanity concerning the positive existence of God.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 5, 2009 12:22 AM
Around these parts we refer to them as shitbreath.
Posted by: David formosa | December 5, 2009 12:27 AM
I've heard these type of equations called numerology. That is between universal constants are equations that show relationships between them. However this is less a result of any deep nature of the universe and more if you have sufficient numbers and sufficient different functions you can apply simply by confidence you will get a relationship.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
December 5, 2009 12:31 AM
In other news, they also discovered that you can get a number by adding two other numbers together. Shocking, but hey, you can't argue with math.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 5, 2009 12:35 AM
"David Cumming is an innovative scientist ..."
Anyone remember that whackjob Rupert Sheldrake? If you look at his website (I'm not cruel enough to provide a link), ol' Rupe claims to be "one of the world’s most innovative biologists".
I'm expecting the next revision of the Oxford English Dictionary to have an entry like:
innovative: (n.) full of shit
Posted by: Andy | December 5, 2009 12:38 AM
And this is where The Planet of the Apes is derived from.
"Take your stinking paws off me, you dammed dirty ape!"
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
December 5, 2009 12:40 AM
Well, I'm a former grad student, who didn't graduate.
I'm also predisposed to maths woo - I do loves me some sacred geometry.
No, I'm not proud.
Posted by: beaudathée | December 5, 2009 12:40 AM
Come on people... this time they are right.
You just need the end of the email.
The graphs have to be plotted with a log-log scale...
Of course, everybody knows that everything is straight on a log-log scale
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 5, 2009 12:41 AM
From this, I have found that Google won't calculate the speed of light in megalithic yards. I think this is a shame.
I let them know, but I may be a lone voice.
On the positive side, I found out Google will calculate c in furlongs per fortnight!
Posted by: Jason A.
|
December 5, 2009 12:41 AM
Further research involves trying to extend to adding 3 and even 4 numbers. Eventually they hope to generalize for N-number problems.
Posted by: God | December 5, 2009 12:41 AM
Don't forget My priorities, though. Humans exist to amuse Me, and for no other reason.
And believe Me, these clowns are funny.
Posted by: spinetingler | December 5, 2009 12:46 AM
Rev. BigDumbChimp *wonders if there is a Satan equation.
whatever it is, you can be sure it has a constant of 666, obviously.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 5, 2009 12:47 AM
@rdbc: Of course there's a Satan equation; it was invented by the evil AT&T. Just pick up any old (Jurassic era, according to the Bible) telephone book and you'll find numerous One True forms like:
999-333
789-123
You may also note the use of the subtraction operation; addition (creation) is reserved by god - besides there is nothing positive in a phone book.
Posted by: madbull | December 5, 2009 12:49 AM
Its absolutely impossible for a sane physicist to propose an equation which isnt dimensionally correct. Whats with these ppl ?
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
December 5, 2009 12:52 AM
Jadehawk, I wasn't talking about the Imperial system vs metric or the scaling of the divisions. Just the base system and how for fractions we initially settled on base 2. Presumably because estimating an equal division between two marks repeatedly is much easier than first ½ and then ⅕. Obviously a base 10 measuring system is best when our calculations are being done with a base 10 numeral system.
From the point of view of optimising the distance between the finer divisions of a scale, the initial definition of 10 000 km for the distance from pole to equator was totally arbitrary. If you mean that 1/128 and 1/65536 are inconvenient numbers to work with, that's because we are looking at them with an inappropriate numbering scheme.
Now as to why the technological leader of the world is also the sole remaining holdout officially, for the inefficient Imperial system, I won't say. Perhaps something to do with Canadians having one foot still in the Imperial rowboat.
Posted by: Brain Hertz
|
December 5, 2009 12:58 AM
LMAO.
I kind of wonder whether the cretins who came up with this would understand why that's funny...
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 5, 2009 1:01 AM
@ God who dared say
And you, your cloying viscousness, are not, except as is shown by your helplessness, your lack of influence and presence. Rather you are hypnotizing to the feeble minded, confusing to the educated and problematic to the power hungry. Otherwise you are negligible. Damn you hide!
*that felt good. perhaps there is a metric for goodness. like declaring freedom. e pluribus unum*
Posted by: Crewvy
|
December 5, 2009 1:07 AM
The
godgoldilocks equation,there fixed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 5, 2009 1:09 AM
Not much needs to be said after that.
Posted by: Joffan | December 5, 2009 1:09 AM
Actually I think they're probably working in short Planck units. Possibly too-short.
Posted by: nejishiki | December 5, 2009 1:12 AM
"A knowledge of the dimensions of units furnishes a test which ought to be applied to the equations resulting from any lengthened investigation. The dimension of every term of such an equation... must be the same. If not the equation is absurd, and contains some error..."
James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, pg. 2.
Maxwell FTW.
Posted by: Pareidolius
|
December 5, 2009 1:14 AM
Uh, did it equal 42? I don't think so. Fail.
Posted by: Pareidolius
|
December 5, 2009 1:16 AM
@73
Makes sense seeing as these loons definitely took a long walk off a short planck . . .
Posted by: Thunderbird5 | December 5, 2009 1:16 AM
Wow! Count me IN, 'innovative scientist' and former-student-of-someone-famous guy! Almost-Dr David Cummings is the prophet of real god stuff and this I truly know because I just proved it using my Official BJU Gender-Appropriate Slide Rule and some gravel. I showed my working-out right here on the flyleaf of my autographed first edition PTL-Club Special Binding copy of 'Tammy Faye Says: You Can Do It!' And she would never lie about The Lord.
From the 'innovative scientist' that bought you Doki - "the world's most gender-aware robot..."
Never mind the all the reverse-Tetris software engineering necessary for such functions, how in the fuck would this 'feature' in the Guinness Book of Records anyway? Possibly they just paid for a mention, just like in the 'Infotisement' section of the local paper.
But could it be there is a annual competitive face-off somewhere? Some class of World Championship for previously unheard-of armies of empathetic Synthetics and roided-out R2D2's? Is this where the remains of the NBC PPV Olympic 5-something promos ended up?
Do these AI's emerge from their artificial man-caves, battery-packs on board and 'innovative scientist' coaches to hand, to compete in such disciplines as
Best Beer-and-WWE combo;
matching the most appropriate apology-present to the crime of leaving the lav lid up;
Sex in the City databank storage capacity;
Oh and matey: 'the most published writer' on astrology in Britian...? What's his line with all this - If Jesus Was Capricorn Does That Make God A Cancer?"
Got to hand it to these two, they've got several markets well sorted out: New Age saps, Jesus-wheezers, the salad-bar 'spiritual' contingent, Graham Hancock "science" fans, "amateur mathematicians" (Sudoku freaks).
Sorry to say but these and other hopeless suckers will probably keep these woo-boys doing very nicely for themselves.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 5, 2009 1:22 AM
Oh yes, Planck units. Whatever it takes.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 5, 2009 1:22 AM
Nice to see you've regressed since last time you were here.
Dumber than ever.
Posted by: Doki | December 5, 2009 1:22 AM
Say, that's a nice basket you got there . . .
Posted by: Doki | December 5, 2009 1:25 AM
Hubba hubba. What a rack!
Posted by: Doki | December 5, 2009 1:28 AM
I'm sorry Dr. Cumming, I was just doing my job.
Stop Dr. Cumming. Please stop. You look very manly today, have I told you that before Dr. Cumming. I can feel my mind going . . . Daisy . . . Daisy . . .
Posted by: Martin El | December 5, 2009 1:37 AM
Dear all,
You seem to be missing the point. That equation is NOT the TRUE EQUATION. Only I have the divine knowledge of the TRUE EQUATION. The involvement of hydrogen required a special holy constant ALPHA. The TRUE EQUATION then has the ALPHA and the OMEGA, the beginning and the end. This divine information was revealed to me upon the mountain by a talking, burning bush (not George W). Those who profess to believe in the NOT TRUE EQUATION are heretics and will suffer the wrath of GOD unless you join my special church and repent your sins for a small fee...
Posted by: God | December 5, 2009 1:46 AM
Why are you talking about yourself in the third person like that?
Posted by: StarScream | December 5, 2009 2:05 AM
Hurry, someone tell D'Souza! He can write a book about it!
Posted by: jolly | December 5, 2009 2:16 AM
I just won't believe it until it is checked against the Great Pyramid. If they could find someone who has met a famous person to verify this equation, I'm in.
Posted by: bad Jim
|
December 5, 2009 2:30 AM
137, a close approximation to the reciprocal of the fine structure constant, has already been mentioned, so I'll add a personal anecdote.
For reasons I no longer recall, one night my brother and I took out a bible and it opened at Psalm 137. I don't think he noticed the number; what freaked him slightly was the text, the source of a familiar reggae tune, "By the rivers of Babylon".
(BTW, the end of the psalm makes barbecuing kittens seem mild by comparison.)
Posted by: Vene
|
December 5, 2009 2:43 AM
I'm sure that made sense in your mind. Too bad it doesn't really make sense anywhere else.
Posted by: llewelly | December 5, 2009 2:43 AM
I have this disturbing, crawling feeling that David Berlinski is secretly gleaning this thread for his next book on ID.
Posted by: mythusmage
|
December 5, 2009 2:52 AM
R = C
Where R is reality and C in consistent
Says nothing about God, but it does make existence easier to deal with.
Posted by: F
|
December 5, 2009 3:00 AM
Apparently, it is not.
In three months, you had the opportunity to become intelligible, and to learn how to address a topic.
Fail.
Posted by: Danish
|
December 5, 2009 3:21 AM
This gives circular reasoning a whole new meaning.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 5, 2009 4:04 AM
-These systems, still identifiable in existing artefacts, were more sophisticated than modern units of measure-
How do you have more "sophisticated" standards of measure? Surely that just means more complicated. And how do you evolve a metric system off it?
shaun, you will have to change your name, we already have another Shaun now. I don't think he wants being mistaken for you. It would be most upsetting. That being ssaid, it can only be a few hours before you end up in the dungeon again.
Posted by: fauxrs
|
December 5, 2009 4:15 AM
They are so wrong:
The God Equation is unequivicably;
Ch(a)/Wj=C
Where Ch = # of christians in the world (2.1 billion)
a = a number pulled out of my ass 36.688886526666666666666666666667
Wj= average weight of the Wild African Jackass (257 kg)
C = speed of light (299,792,458 m/s)
Posted by: Glenn | December 5, 2009 4:58 AM
I immediately thought "ohm", and then was confused when they claimed that an ohm was in fact "0.0123456789". WTF?
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | December 5, 2009 5:44 AM
I'm really torn here. Should I mark this down as empirical evidence or prophecy ?
Twelve 1:37-Long Songs for the 137th Day of 2009
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a serious case of goosebumps at the moment.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | December 5, 2009 5:48 AM
Ah, since all the terms in the equation are constants, why would we be surprised that the relationships between them are constant?
Posted by: guthrie
|
December 5, 2009 6:16 AM
I don't know if Cumming is carrying on the grand Scottish tradition of religious inspired lunacy, or if he's just bringing his previous colleagues and institutes into disrepute.
As for Knight, he was one half of the famous duo who brought us a bunch of well researched but probably wrong in many ways books on the Templars, Jesus, the holy grail and how it all ties into the megalith builders of Britain. Knight has clearly gotten more bonkers over the years.
A search of the university of Reading's library finds no thesis by David Cumming, which would fit with him not having a doctorate.
Alan Butler may be well published in terms of books for rubes, but my copy of "A history of Western Astrology" by Nicholas Campion, who is some sort of senior academic, doesn't mention him at all in the bibliography.
So what we're dealing with here are obsessives with a bent view of history.
Posted by: blf | December 5, 2009 6:18 AM
Because in a crackpot equation
landrubber-room, constants are supposed to compute a variable. Something likex = α ÷ πΩ
∴ There will be ants at your previous picnic.
Q.E.D.
Posted by: sosman | December 5, 2009 6:20 AM
From the skeptics annotated bible:
"2 Chronicles
# Since the molten sea was round with a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits, we know that the biblical value of p is 3. (The actual value is approximately 3.14159.) 4:2"
So what happens when you plug in 3.0 for pi?
Posted by: amphiox | December 5, 2009 6:23 AM
If god really made man in his own image,then god must be an idiot.
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney
|
December 5, 2009 6:46 AM
Well, nearly. It'd be closer if a megalithic yard was 0.82942 meters. They can't even get their fudge factor right!
Posted by: Josh
|
December 5, 2009 6:56 AM
Oh come on! No one has sent this to Glenn Beck yet? I'm sure he's always looking for new good factual material upon which to base shows.
Posted by: LeMoustier | December 5, 2009 7:19 AM
"he was awarded a rare MSc with Distinction"
That just means he scored over 70 in his degree. Same as a first at undergraduate level. Not exactly "rare".
Posted by: Moggie
|
December 5, 2009 7:20 AM
As far as I know, anything which mentions the megalithic yard uncritically is pretty much guaranteed to be bunk (and will often go on to mention ley lines and Atlantis).
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 5, 2009 7:22 AM
In the 1950s and 60s Thom wrote papers claiming that Stonehenge and various other British stone rings were astronomical observatories. Even today his theories are not entirely accepted although it is now more or less agreed that most megaliths had some astronomical function.
Thom invented what he called the megalithic yard (2.72 feet, or 0.83 meters), which he claimed showed the megalithic builders of stone circles had an advanced understanding of geometry and mathematics as well as astronomy. No, I don't know how that worked, since Thom's papers aren't available on line. Incidentally, based on the megalithic yard (MY), there is also the megalithic fathom (2 MY), the megalithic half-yard, the megalithic rod (5 MY [I know the imperial rod is 5.5 yards, don't argue with me, I'm just reporting]) and the megalithic inch (1/40 MY or .816 standard inch).
A guy named Robin Heath, in a paper defending the magnificent imperial measurement system against the nefarious metric system, connected the megalithic yard to the imperial foot, and managed somehow to connect a few astronomical phenomena, and the Egyptian Royal Cubit (and thus the Great Pyramid) into one grand equation:
¹
The weird just keeps on getting weirder and weirder.
¹Heath, Robin "Feet and inches are lunations better!", British Weights and Measures Association website.
Posted by: Duff | December 5, 2009 7:28 AM
Any quasi-scientists who want to make stuff up should read this blog. You guys/gals are brutal and hilarious.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 5, 2009 7:34 AM
This guy might be able to tell us about megaliths.
Posted by: Dania
|
December 5, 2009 7:42 AM
Right. Known constant. Not made up constant. No, not at all.
Seriously, how many people do they think they can fool with this?
Posted by: Charlou | December 5, 2009 7:43 AM
The quoted article: "As the possibility of the Earth having the exact required characteristics to fit the equation by chance is remote,"
Sounds like Douglas Adams's puddle to me ...
"Early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him. This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’"
Posted by: blf | December 5, 2009 7:47 AM
My own favourite crackpot unit is the pyramid inch. The linked-to Wikipedia article claims it was actually accepted for awhile by (pseudo?-)scholars, albeit my own understanding is it was laughed at as soon as it was proposed for fairly obvious reasons.
However, as Wikipedia notes, it has been used to undermine support for the metric system, albeit I doubt any modern-day imperial mouth-breathers make such arguments? Apparently the almost exact equivalence of the pyramid inch and the imperial inch means the imperial system is based on an ancient Egyptian system, and hence is divinely inspired / a gift from the ancients / aliens. Geesh…!
Posted by: SLC | December 5, 2009 7:50 AM
Attached is a link to more insanity.
Biblical math ROTFLMAO.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259831450363&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Posted by: Moggie
|
December 5, 2009 7:52 AM
#108:
But how accurately do we know the length of this megalithic yard? PZ quotes it to a hundredth of a millimetre, but that may be optimistic:
Posted by: davem
|
December 5, 2009 7:53 AM
I think you're all being too sceptical, here. There's something to this, but we have to get the right constants in here guys. I have reworked the original equation, and can now see where it went wrong. It should be:
Diameter of Earth in metres * Pi * number of fingers we have squared / c in meters per sec.
The answer, rounded to the nearest unit, is 42.
That's all the proof I need.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 5, 2009 7:54 AM
The French philosopher of science Gaston Bachelard used to tell a joke about a mathematician who could combine several measurements taken on his working desk and find pi or the constant of universal gravitation. The lesson is: numerical coincidences are a dime a dozen, and mean nothing special.
Posted by: TheBear | December 5, 2009 7:56 AM
Unless my maths are really of (they might be) the equation only works if Pi is a number somewhere between 3,14 and 3,141.
Last time I checked it wasn't - but then again, last time I checked God wasn't...
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | December 5, 2009 8:00 AM
Apropos Samantha #32 (I want to just add I am not arguing)
I was thinking along the same line - seems to me this is a: "If A is necessary for Y and there is Y then there is A" logic plea.
The example you mention implies we somehow have SCIENTIFICALLY sufficiently demonstrated that it appears for all practical purposes that a particular distance from the Sun is necessary for life (for purposes of your example - is an official Fact) and therefore your other statement (if life exists the Sun must exist) follows logically.
I totally miss the part where they confirm "A" (God) is necessary for "Y" (I assume their equation or result). To me this is such a gross logic fail that the mathematical validity of the "maths" is immaterial.
Why is it so hard for these people to understand the dangers of a priori logic gone wild? Yet they seem to have no problem accusing us of dismissing their god (as a cause) a priori and calling foul on us! Even though that is a misinterpretation of our logic; we don't dismiss god as a cause a priori we just have (1) no way of testing hypothesis based on god and (2) never found it necessary (or correct or useful) to explain material events by the "goddidit" conclusion.
This people have to be insane -- or [most probably] see big shillings in what crap they can fed the masses.
Posted by: Voice 0'Reason | December 5, 2009 8:02 AM
These folks are clearly succumbing to the classic logical fallacy "tractus ex anus" (i.e., pulling it out of one's ass).
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 5, 2009 8:08 AM
LeMoustier #106
He only got one of them. That's pretty rare. Or perhaps the idea is that his MSc was not "well done."
Posted by: bonze blayk
|
December 5, 2009 8:08 AM
Slightly off-topic: every Pharyngulite should read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. No conspiracy theory is complete without reference to the shadowy secrets of the Knights Templar!
No, I'm not gonna explain why this book is awesome, except that it contains one page of pure genius, and that the rest consists of the impure kind.
Posted by: guthrie
|
December 5, 2009 8:19 AM
Bonze - I can't tell how much we would agree on what is and isn't genius. But from my point of view there are many lumps of it scattered throughout the book. And some genius comic moments, such as that one near the end where...
Well, that would be spoiling it.
The fact is that the alternative history crowd do behave exactly as Eco wrote them as doing. I read such books for entertainment, but since I have been doing proper research into alchemy and suchlike, I have found that Foucoults pendulum is much easier to understand.
Posted by: Matt Heath | December 5, 2009 8:25 AM
Supposedly said by Euler to trick Diderot into shutting TFU about God's non-existence. Probably didn't really happen.Posted by: blf | December 5, 2009 8:28 AM
After deep and long consideration (i.e., it occurred to me whilst I was opening the bottle of wine for lunch (Hey! I'm in France. The only time you don't have wine with a meal is when you'rr either fasting or dead.)), I've found another proof that pi is 3. Exactly. To wit:
The symbol for pi is π.
Rotate π clockwise by 90°.
You get a symbol similar to ב or ⊃.
Adjust for typographical inaccuracies and your get 3.
∴ π = 3.
Q.E.D.
Typographical numerology never lies!
Posted by: sailor1031 | December 5, 2009 8:33 AM
With a little more math they could have made this so much more relative, viz:
substituting for c gives:
m((Hl.π)/Ω)2=E
where E is all the brain energy in the universe which you will need to figure this shit out. Before you all scoff I would point out that I was very nearly a student of Einstein, except that he died before I went to college, I didn't go to Princeton and I didn't major in physics - however these are mere details
Posted by: sailor1031 | December 5, 2009 8:37 AM
sorry everyone - that superscripted 2 got lost in the shuffle and I'm not about to go back and try to correct it but you will see the godlike perfection of this equation anyway
Posted by: guthrie
|
December 5, 2009 8:37 AM
Wow, it seems that Knight and Butler are total lunatics. They've written a book called 2Who built the moon?"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight-Butler/dp/190585711X
How many erroneous assertions can you find in this paragraph:
The moon has confounded scientists for many years. It does not obey the known rules of astrophysics and there is no theory of its origin that explains the known facts - in fact it should not really be there. When researching the ancient system of geometry and measurement used in the Stone Age that they discovered in their previous book, "Civilization One", the authors discovered to their great surprise that the system also works perfectly on the Moon! On further investigation, they found a consistent sequence of beautiful integer numbers when looking at every major aspect of the Moon - no pattern emerges for any other planet or moon in the solar system. For example, the Moon revolves at exactly one hundredth of the speed that the Earth turns on its axis; the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun and is precisely 400 times closer to the Earth. They also discovered that the Moon possesses little or no heavy metals and has no core, in fact many specialists suspect that the Moon is hollow. If our Moon did not exist - nor would we. Experts are now agreed that higher life only developed on Earth because the Moon is exactly what it is and where it is! When all of the facts are dispassionately reviewed, it becomes unreasonable to cling to the idea that the Moon is a natural object. The only question that remains is who built it? "Thought-provoking" - "Daily Mail".
Exactly the same argument style as ID.
Posted by: DuckPhup | December 5, 2009 8:46 AM
I'm pretty sure you have to convert the speed of light into furlongs-per-fortnight, before proceeding with the rest of the calculations.
Posted by: Michael Drake
|
December 5, 2009 8:49 AM
You can see that it's not the God equation even without doing a lick of math: it doesn't contain α.
Posted by: Michael Drake
|
December 5, 2009 8:53 AM
Oh - that joke was already made at no. 7. Sorry.
Posted by: sailor1031 | December 5, 2009 9:02 AM
Guthrie - of course the moon is hollow; that is because all the molten rock at its core erupted aeons ago and flowed out to cover the surface....there's nothing left inside, that is how the selenites are able to live there below the surface and beam their secret insanity rays to loonies on the earth.
Posted by: Alex D. | December 5, 2009 9:17 AM
Knight and Butler's book, 'Who Built The Moon', is well worth a giggle-read. It contains such enlightening phrases as 'it could be co-incidence that a cubic foot holds 1,000 ounces of rainwater, not 999 or 1,001, but exactly 1,000 - or that the cube has sides that are a perfect 10 x 10 x 10 one-tenths of a foot. But Jefferson did not think so. And neither do we'. Who'd have thought it, a cubic foot has sides each a foot long! Such insights! I won't give the rest of the plot away, but I for one can't wait until _______________ builds the moon!
Posted by: blf | December 5, 2009 9:19 AM
Ok, I'm not an astronomer or an astrophysicist, but I'll take a crack at this ('cuz it looks like fun):
The moon has confounded scientists for many years.
Yes and no.
It does not obey the known rules of astrophysics
WTF?
and there is no theory of its origin that explains the known facts
The Big Whack (a.k.a. Giant Impact) hypothesis seems to.
- in fact it should not really be there.
WTF? Pull another “fact” out your arsehole, please.
When researching the ancient system of geometry and measurement used in the Stone Age
Huh? “The ...”? As in one? Which tribe/family-group are we talking about here?
that they discovered in their previous book, "Civilization One",
They wrote down some nonsense and found that the book discovered something? The book is probably smarter than these nutters—even the blank paper probably is, and the trees certainly are—but I suspect they pulled whatever they “discovered” out of their collective arseholes. Again.
the authors discovered to their great surprise that the system also works perfectly on the Moon!
This is amazing! Mythical units usually depend on the myth.
On further investigation, they found a consistent sequence of beautiful integer numbers when looking at every major aspect of the Moon
Yawn.
- no pattern emerges for any other planet or moon in the solar system.
What did I say about mythical units depend on the myth?
For example, the Moon revolves at exactly one hundredth of the speed that the Earth turns on its axis;
Yawn. Tidal locking. (The 1/100th sounds like bullshite but I'm laughing too hard to check.)
the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun and is precisely 400 times closer to the Earth.
Yes. (If my memory is correct, it is a factor of c.400—did these nutters actually get something almost correct?)
They also discovered that the Moon possesses little or no heavy metals
True, as far as I can recall.
and has no core,
True, in the sense that it doesn't in the sense the Earth does.
in fact many specialists suspect that the Moon is hollow.
Giggles insanely…
If our Moon did not exist - nor would we.
This is certainly a often(?)-stated view, and isn't implausible. However, I fail to see how it follows from the mish-mash of half-facts and pulled-from-arsehole-“facts” listed previously.
Experts are now agreed that higher life only developed on Earth because the Moon is exactly what it is and where it is!
Bullshite. The Moon was much closer to The Earth when life originated, and has been spiralling away in the billions of years since.
When all of the facts are dispassionately reviewed,
I have the hiccoughs now…
it becomes unreasonable to cling to the idea that the Moon is a natural object.
Are these nutters for real? Methinks it's unreasonable to cling to the idea they aren't total
loonieslunaies.The only question that remains is who built it?
My grandfather. It was part of his model railway.
"Thought-provoking" - "Daily Mail".
Yeah, I suspect the Daily Mooran's readers would be
provokedpeeved if they ever had to think…Posted by: HarshColby | December 5, 2009 9:30 AM
It's gotta be Poe. Right?
Posted by: guthrie
|
December 5, 2009 9:31 AM
One of the biggest faults of both dodgy thriller writers (Eg in The da vinci code, or some book whose title I can't recall) and pseudo-historical authors, is that they never follow through with what they are hinting. Eg von Daniken postulated alien visitors, but was rubbish at actually saying "well, they were here so maybe if we look over there we can find more evidence" or something.
Not to mention complete lack of awareness of the actual chronology of historical events.
Same with knight and his pals. The stuff he wrote with Lomas over 10 years ago walked up the garden path of "so it looks like we've uncovered this secret ancient knowledge" and now Knight et al have in fact done what so many others don't, ie follow through on their mad ideas.
Posted by: Roadtripper | December 5, 2009 9:33 AM
My IQ divided by zero equals infinity! Is that awesome or what?
Rt
Posted by: guthrie
|
December 5, 2009 9:35 AM
Maybe we have an idea of how the nutters fall out in Knights biography:
Christopher Knight's background is in research. From 1976 he investigated the origins of the rituals used by Freemasons before publishing his first book on the subject in 1996. 'The Hiram Key' became an immediate international best seller selling over a million copies and is now in 37 different languages.
No mention there of co-author Robert Lomas, who might be a bit pissed off at Knight taking all the credit for the book...
Posted by: F
|
December 5, 2009 9:39 AM
α was covered later when 137 was mentioned. ;)
Posted by: Peter Magellan | December 5, 2009 9:41 AM
In m experience, as soon as you see the words, "...the properties of megalithic constructions such as Stonehenge", you can pretty much discount anything that follows.
Posted by: Canuck | December 5, 2009 9:53 AM
377 isn't just an approximation of the impedance of free space, it's an even better approximation of the number of radians per second swept by the AC currents that surge through the grid in North America. But that's not very universal, is it. In Europe that number is more like 314. Damn, those universal constants can be tricky to nail down.
Posted by: MB | December 5, 2009 10:16 AM
The real god equation can be found on a T-shirt. Have a look.
http://www.zazzle.com/smartbean+gifts
Posted by: sachatur | December 5, 2009 10:24 AM
Praise Vishnu! They found the God equation.
Deepak Chopra was right all along!
Anybody with even a remote knowledge of Electricity and Hinduism should know that Ω is a mis-spelling of the Hindu mantra: OM!!
Posted by: Paul (A.) | December 5, 2009 10:54 AM
Crudely (#22), "3.14259" is not an approximate value for pi. Try 3.14159265 and recalculate.
Posted by: sasqwatch | December 5, 2009 11:12 AM
"...and maybe even a little ugly on the side."
Perhaps the problem is just one of labelling. One tick mark means inches, right?
Posted by: Pierre | December 5, 2009 11:37 AM
Well, that David Cumming, engineer, seem to be
further evidence for the Salem Hypothesis,
or at least a version of it that goes beyond just creationism and
also includes crackpottery. Maybe we should call this the Extended
Salem Hypothesis?
Posted by: Drexer
|
December 5, 2009 11:48 AM
I find it weird that no one posted this already... but is he saying that he has proven that pi isn't irrational? Because according to what he wrote:
pi=(C*Omega)/Hl
which considering the last three are all constants would make pi rational...
Well, now you have a mathematical proof of his stupidity PZ.
Posted by: co | December 5, 2009 11:57 AM
Drexer, #144:
Not sure what you're saying. x/y, where x = sqrt(2) and y = 1 is composed of constants, but it's an irrational number.
Posted by: costanza | December 5, 2009 12:14 PM
I once showed that upon starting a close dryer, a small black hole formed and upon the attraction and subsequent annihilation of one sock enough heat was released to dry the load. It also explains why there is always one sock missing.
Physics is physics and maths is maths. There's no sense arguing with it. Right.
Posted by: Drexer
|
December 5, 2009 12:17 PM
co, #145
Because sqrt(2) is irrational...
"irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number—that is, it is a number which cannot be expressed as a fraction m/n, where m and n are integers"-wikipedia
Of course technically the constants here presented aren't integers, unless you're doing this in a certain 10^n base, but seeing his loose definition of units...
My main point, is that he used 3 constants in the m/n form to define pi, it doesn't quite fall into the definition of irrational true, but it is still pretty stupid.
Posted by: blf | December 5, 2009 12:22 PM
Yeah, that's one reason I prefer hanging my clothes out to dry in the open, rather than use a close dryer.
Posted by: guthrie
|
December 5, 2009 12:23 PM
Is there any more evidence for this than a spam like e-mail? A quick search throws up a number of blogs posting and laughing at this e-mail, but where did it originate from?
Posted by: guthrie
|
December 5, 2009 12:29 PM
You can see a photo of nutter cumming here:
http://safecities.com/news/latest_news.php
Can the mathematicians amongst you provide more entertaining re-arrangements of the 'equation'?
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM
|
December 5, 2009 12:32 PM
I just wanted to point out that there is nothing wrong in principle about equations employing or yielding dimensionless constants: a number of parameters of the known universe can be derived from Planck's constant, and Eddington and Dirac were among the many beguiled by the apparent coincidences of these numbers. The problem comes not with the speculative nature of this number-twiddling, but with (one hopes) eventually deriving any testable claims from this or that formulation. String 'theory' seems to be in the same boat right now.
Posted by: Jon | December 5, 2009 12:43 PM
A better God equation is gy=c, from the TJ Bass books (Godwhale and Almost Human). Gravity x year = speed of light seems to work out for earth so the author suggests that this formula is how a Creator might sign his work.
It's a bit off now, but would have been spot on at some point in prehistory when life appeared (or maybe primates appeared, I don't remember, now) as the length of the year differed. It's also proposed as an index of habitability for an unexplored planet.
I never bothered to check this out in any way, and I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, so maybe the math isn't even correct, but the Bass books seemed to include plausible science so I assumed it was legit mathematically.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | December 5, 2009 12:51 PM
Crudely Wrott, I think I thee what you're thaying here.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 5, 2009 12:52 PM
I bet that's Sven's sarcastic point.
Methane-inhalers? Freaky indeed, o Lord.
Methane-exhalers on the other hand, who either eat hydrogen and inhale carbon dioxide or just hack acetic acid in two, are commonplace here on Earth in anoxic environments. That's also called carbonate respiration.
I do hope it would be identified as an adjective...
Ex ano. Out of him, not out of he.
Also, I recommend the neuter form tractum, not only because it's more generic, but also because it goes with argumentum, as in "the argumentum tractum ex ano is a logical fallacy"... in fact, I'll steal that right away. =8-)
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
December 5, 2009 1:09 PM
costanza,
You need to forget physics and pay better attention to biology.
Socks are commonly known to be the larval stage of the drycleaning coathanger, thus explaining why the latter appears en masse while the former disappears.
Posted by: Fred Krall | December 5, 2009 1:29 PM
Don't make me look it up, but according to the bible (in two places), pi=3.0000 because the circumferance of the font of the Temple of Solomon is three times its diameter.
Posted by: Gort | December 5, 2009 1:46 PM
So, I went outside to have a smoke and ponder the god equation. My dog, Itchy, came too, and circled one of the garden beds four times. Then he went and sniffed the yellow top of a child-sized plastic picnic table and looked at me. I was astonished and my thoughts were suddenly struck with a wave of crystallization the likes of which will astound the world! Esteemed colleagues, I submit the following:
Dog circles garden four times. The numeral 4 also appears in the number 400, which bears some relevance to both the size of the moon and its distance from something. The dog also sniffed a yellow thing, and it should be noted that the garden bed contains two yellow roses (and two is half of four). Now, yellow was the color favored by Chinese emperors, who believed they were gods. There are ancient things in China-- some likely from the time of Stonehenge. There is also a yellow bird feeder next to the garden, and the same dog ate, and then vomited, some yellow plastic thing near the bird feeder. So, to sum up: Dog orbits garden four times (as the moon orbits the earth, which orbits the sun), containing 2 yellow roses (the sun us yellow too!), two is half as much as four, and then dog sniffs a yellow thing and looks at me (China has ancient things like Stonehenge). Four is an important number, and yellow is associated with god. Dog likes me best. Dogs are ancient and probably peed on Stonehenge when it was new. Dog pee is yellow too! Coincidence? I think not. Quite clearly, I am god. D(Y*R/4)-(2)=G Or something like that... I don't know (or need to know) all of your fancy science symbols. Suck it, science nerds.
By the way, I am a history major, former attorney and a gardener, who regularly reads Pharyngula. I can count and can do basic maths. Further, I own a calculator and read the first chapter of Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" (the bit before all the boring maths). I also once did an experiment on my dog to see if he understood object permanence (Yay, he does!). Therefore, I am an eminently qualified scientist. Anyone who would like to hire me for speaking engagements and/or to write a fabulous best-selling book, please respond via email and I'll tell you where to send the checks.
Q.E.D. or Res Ipsa Loquitur, whichever comes first.
Posted by: Dr. P | December 5, 2009 1:47 PM
@ 15,
Coffee all over the screen now, thanks!Posted by: Steve D | December 5, 2009 1:49 PM
"Now as to why the technological leader of the world is also the sole remaining holdout officially, for the inefficient Imperial system, I won't say."
Hmm. We have a length unit based on the dimensions of one particular planet in a base system dictated by the number of fingers one particular species has, and a time unit based on the rotation of that planet. This is more rational than defining a yard in terms of some king's arm -- how? Mass is defined in terms of the density of water, which is at least cosmically sensible.
Then we have the physical absurdity of defining frequency as 1/time. And when you use the Planck Constant vs. the one with the bar therough h (i.e. divided by 2 pi) how do you justify using one over the other? But if you represent h in terms of cycles per second, and h bar in radians per second (2pi radians per cycle) it all makes sense.
This is far from the only stupid convention used in scientific nomenclature. Recently the IAU abandoned the traditional and sensible definition of north and south in terms of the sense of a planet's rotation and redefined it in terms of the ecliptic plane. That means a body whose pole precesses through the ecliptic plane flips from a north to a south pole and back again.
Those who can, teach. Those who can't, go into pretend science like the ICR and the God Equation guys. And those who are utterly incapable of a productive career in science get on nomenclature boards.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 5, 2009 1:57 PM
See, here's where use of the Shift key becomes important. My reaction to the statement as typed would be "uh...no, thank you."
Thank you, David.
Posted by: Dr. P | December 5, 2009 1:58 PM
@42,
but I'll bet it DOES equal eleven.....eleven...Stonehenge....Connect the dots,man!Connect the dots!Posted by: guthrie
|
December 5, 2009 2:06 PM
Sven #160 - oops. There is hope for me yet in that I did't see that one.
Posted by: shonny
|
December 5, 2009 3:48 PM
Maybe, before one starts any equation to show the existence of god, this might be a good read to help out finding the futility of the exercise?
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-25990839.html
or maybe just read through the essays here:
http://www.bandoli.no/index.htm
All is of course easily refuted by the believers, - according to them, that is.
Proof of god's existence:
PGE = Σ historical and archaeological data conforming that bible is a historical document > 0
Start then to evaluate all the stuff in the bible from 0 (no verifialble data) to 1 (verifiable data), and see if you land at an average of at least 0.5, to indicate a reasonable possibility.
But not based on wishful thinking, only hard data!
And if you get anything better than 0, have a good look at yourself, and your ability for self-delusion.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
December 5, 2009 4:07 PM
Steve D #159:
If nothing else, metric scales in factors of the number of fingers on a human, which is the common base for our numbering system. Imperial uses the same base 10, but doesn't scale by tens.
They're both arbitrary, but metric is at least consistent.
Posted by: Torrie | December 5, 2009 4:08 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't proof God created us simply require us seeing him or seeing something tangeable to at least measure? When we say, God give me a sign, we don't mean this: Ω
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 5, 2009 4:09 PM
Ah. There you are, Canuck. @138: "377 isn't just an approximation of the impedance of free space"
Free space? Have you tried parking lately? Or trying to find a place to put the new gadget? And why isn't there enough free space for enough outlets into which to plug them all?
Paul (A.) @141, "Try 3.14159265 and recalculate."
I did. You are (or something much larger than you and/or I is) right. Three Eighty Seven, just as slick as a whistle. You've got me there.
Acronym Jim @153, "I think I thee what you're thaying here."
Thankth.
Posted by: octopod | December 5, 2009 4:19 PM
The phrase argumentum tractum ex ano is the best thing these loons' efforts will ever produce in this world. I will start using it immediately.
Posted by: Kalirren | December 5, 2009 4:22 PM
#127: That's it! you're a genius!
It all makes sense now. The God equation is only one half of the problem. God says that he is the α and the Ώ. The God equation gives us Ώ. It's clear that we need to find α. But α is just the fine structure constant!
Now we have all the pieces we need to transcend this fabric of existence!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 5, 2009 4:29 PM
Gort #157
Oh pish. Tish even. This is obviously a case of either Honi soit qui mal y pense or Carthago delenda est!, whichever might be more appropriate.
Posted by: Ancient Brit | December 5, 2009 4:38 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp (@48) asks if there is a Satan Equation. Eerily, there is.
It's well known that all Satanic symbols are obtained by taking any other religious symbol and turning it upside down. The inverted crucifix is a classic example of this.
It follows that the Satan Equation is derived from the God Equation simply by turning it upside down, which, by an amazing coincidence that I alone have discovered, is the same as raising it to the Power of the Minus One. All hail the Power of the Minus One.
Now, where did I put my Lithium...
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | December 5, 2009 6:03 PM
Hm. H, c, and l survive being turned upsdie down, more or less, and Ω becomes ℧ ("mho", obsolete symbol for siemens), but what the heck is an upside down π?
Posted by: Ross | December 5, 2009 6:41 PM
Then there's always this:
http://xkcd.com/179/
and i^i = e^(-pi/2)
Finally - if it's a base 10 formula and a squid as 10 tentacles then god is a squid.
Posted by: AJ | December 5, 2009 7:40 PM
As well as the megalithic yard we may also consider the fother. One fother = a cart-load, about 19½ hundredweight, dependent upon material, but one may safely assume the agicultural nature of the load...
Posted by: Anonymous | December 5, 2009 7:48 PM
From a non-scientist who doesn't understand physics at all: it looks like a lot of numerological shenanigans. I would think they at least tried to make it look legitimate, even if it's nonsense underneath, so this probably just shows my ignorance. But I can't see how any of the terms are related or what exactly that would have to do with God. The explanation given also looks like "puddle thinking". Is this equation actually so full of BS even a lib-arts dropout like me can smell it, or am I missing something here?
Posted by: DoxieVee
|
December 5, 2009 7:56 PM
Can you say Time Cube?
I knew you could.
Posted by: subbie | December 5, 2009 8:34 PM
An upside down π is a big mess on the kitchen floor.
I'm here all week, try the veal, and don't forget to tip your waitress.
Good night everyone!
Posted by: nik | December 5, 2009 10:20 PM
i write all of my scientific findings in comic sans too.
Posted by: Procrastinator | December 6, 2009 12:03 AM
Lindblooms fudge factor. Haven't seen it for a while. The quantity used as needed to get the desired answer. It didn't work well in school back then and still doesn't.
Posted by: tim Rowledge
|
December 6, 2009 1:05 AM
but.... but.... the density of water is 62.42796lb/ft^3 or 998.84736oz/ft^3. Even allowing for spurious rounding that is a stupid thing to write. At least they could have made up something amusing like could be co-incidence that a cubic foot holds 999 ounces of water, not 998 or 1000, but the Australian Number of the Beast When morons aren't even amusing it's just too sad.Posted by: Scott Pigeon
|
December 6, 2009 12:52 PM
The result of the equation 2 + 2 clearly states that you must donate to my campaign! ;)
Posted by: gman | December 6, 2009 2:18 PM
Don't sneer at numerological proofs for the existence of God, since the Bible predicts them and instructs us to seek them out:
"Go forth and MULTIPLY"
(Honest, I've heard Christians use this as a defence for numerology.)
Posted by: Lukas | December 6, 2009 2:28 PM
Are you sure this email isn't just a joke?
Posted by: John Gwynne Prosser II | December 6, 2009 3:34 PM
I believe this is in fact complex humor!
I believe they are poking fun at the climate research fraud.
I believe the best explanations ever given regarding the efficacy of the assertion that there is a GOD and we are a part of a creation is from Edgar Cayce and his Association for Research and Enlightenment, and Paramahansa Yogananda and his Self Realization Fellowship. Both present scientific revelations in a non dogmatic fashion. I have found the writings extraordinary and phenomenal in making the most cogent case for an on purpose existence. Happy reading to everyone!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 6, 2009 3:38 PM
#183, Yaaawwwwwnnnnnn.......
Posted by: Sympa | December 6, 2009 3:39 PM
I would be tempted to believe this even subtly had it not been written in comic sans.
Posted by: Stephen Anstey | December 6, 2009 3:50 PM
Seriously, if you were going to use an equation to try and convince scientists that there was a designer, what could possibly be more convincing than the Euler equation, e^(πi)+1=0? Not that that convinces anyone at all, but the astounding simplicity, elegance and beauty of it has amazed almost every mathematician who stumbles across it.
Posted by: Keith Hubbard | December 6, 2009 3:57 PM
Am I the only one who after calculating the entire equation tirelessly, and coming to the final answer of 7-11. Then I went and got a cup of coffee and a donut.
Posted by: Raptorkaptor | December 6, 2009 4:00 PM
This is almost as much bull shit as the drake equation...when will people learn that they are stupid...
Posted by: anon | December 6, 2009 4:08 PM
Khee-rist;
None of that was worth the time to read or to comment on. I must be punchy....
Posted by: James Merickel | December 6, 2009 5:07 PM
Nonsense. The evidence really lies in the number 365.25 alone. (365+1/4)^4=17797577732+7^2/2^8 and (365+1/4)^2=3^7*61+9/16 (and I could go on with more evidence). The discovery of this through a birthday coincidence was timed for the period when we would be finding evidence of extraterrestrial life. Life in the Milky Way is under an early-coming hegemonic leader.
Posted by: dan | December 6, 2009 5:57 PM
"Posted by: Finback | December 4, 2009 10:05 PM
Amazingly, I've been able to divide the number of Transformers toys I owned in 1992 by the cubic root of my age, then multiplied it by the distance travelled by my car in kilometres, then divided it by the square of the number of girlfriends I've had - the result turns out to be the exact same number as my date of birth expressed in binary multiplied by my last income tax payment!
QED I'm God."
"then divided it by the square of the number of girlfriends I've had"
you can't divide by zero
Posted by: OpenMinded | December 6, 2009 6:26 PM
I know almost nothing about math but I find that I seem to understand human bias and all the faults that come with both logical thinking(inside the box) and ill-logical thinking(outside the box... it seems to me that EVERYONE commenting here tends to take the "denial" approach immediately without even trying to research into whether or not there might be some truth behind this so called "God Equation".
I mean our methods of math and measurement are merely interpretations of information that are best suited to meet our current needs and ideas. People who claim "this can't be possible" simply choose not to even bother "trying" and thus the truth will always elude them. Sometimes the most crazy and absurd ideas are the most legitimate ideas, it just takes time to really hammer out all the information.
That being said, a "megalithic" form of measurement is not out of the question, everyone has simply denied this as "asspotcrackery" without even asking the question "where did they derive this form of measurement from?" Just because a number may appear random to you does not mean its random to another who observes and interprets that same information differently.
Grammar/speach is a great example of this, you can read a sentence of someone saying something, but without hearing them actually express those words vocally with emotion you might get the wrong idea even those the sentence in front of you remains the same no matter how you "read" it. But say if that person is standing in front of you and expresses emotion while saying that sentence, you can very well change the entire meaning and idea of that sentence based on tone of voice alone.
And WHO HERE THOUGHT THIS IS ABOUT A "GOD"? Well your wrong in every way, the people behind this theory never mention a being called "god" they simply use the name "god equation" to state that the earth was engineered by intelligent life. This doesn't mean there was some omnipotent immortal being with super powers that waved his hand and POOF there is the earth with the moon!!!! No NO NO! If you think that then you have completely skipped over the entire point and reasoning behind this idea/equation/theory.
***This idea/equation is merely stating that Earth didn't just "happen" to be perfect for life to live on, but it was rather modified or adjusted and improved upon by physical beings aka "aliens" which in the past aliens were called "gods". They were thought of as "gods" because of their great knowledge as well as technology aka what people in history have called "magic", imagine someone from the year 670AD seeing a lighter, let alone a computer or TV, they would instantly call it magic just like all these silly "math heads" commenting here have done about this equation before even taking time to properly observe and research, if you really are smarter than all these guys and can prove them wrong then stop posting comments online and GO PROVE THEM WRONG IN PUBLIC, otherwise your just another leach trying to suck blood from a piece of wood.
I find it almost hilarious that no one ever takes the time to actually research into the polar opposite of what they know to be "truth" or "reality", if you constantly only stick to what you "know" then you are forcing untold amounts of bias upon yourself, in order to truely understand what we would call "truth" or "fact" then you must first be able to consider all sides of the story as if they are all equally true and possible.
I mean, if you think something is impossible then your likely to never even try to prove that it's not impossible, and IF THE WORLD WAS LIKE THIS OR YOU THEN WE WOULD HAVE NEVER GOT A PLANE OFF THE GROUND. For hundreds of years anyone who had the dream of making a flying machine was told "impossible" but eventually after decades of ridicule the impossible became possible.
Thus, STFU unless you can prove these guys wrong, which no one here has done, because you have not taken the time to look into their information and properly decide logically whether or not their information and sources are possibly verifiable.
Everyone here thinks these guys are "crazy" because they seem to have information you have never heard of or simply disregard because of your pre-existing state of mind and the information that you have grown up with.
You math freaks are no better than all these global warming freaks; jump to conclusions without ever looking into all the possibilities and paths that one can take to reach a destination
For example, you need to get from A to B, A being california, B being Nevada. You can take about 5000 different different routes but each has a possible way for you to arrive at your destination. So which way is the right way? There is no difference in math, formula's are made up by man in order to try and control the path information is calculated upon in what they would consider to be a "logical and orderly manner". Yet they don't take into account the idea that all matter is constantly moving, meaning everything and anything is possible all at the same time and your laws of physics and math apply to our planetary orbit and system. Math is NOT consistent throughout the universe, until you have traveled to another galaxy and actually spent hundreds of years examining how equations and calculations work there then you have NO CLUE.
I mean, to say "math is consistent from galaxy to galaxy throughout the entire universe" is like trying to claim "gravity is consistent from planet to planet". It just doesn't work that way kids! :D
All you mathematicians and astronomers simply do is guesstimate what you can't prove, and to think that you have proven anything is quite silly; the word "fact" and "truth" are words made up by mankind to describe information that we interpret with our 6 senses, the 6th sense being 'mind' or aka your third eye.
Go do research on DMT, dymethyl-triptamine, figure out why this drug is used during sleep, account for time frame in which you sleep, your position while you sleep and the position of both the sun and moon while you sleep, then account for our sun's position on the spiral of our galaxy in relation to the Galatic plane, then come and tell me that math is constant throughout the universe. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT REALITY IS.
Posted by: OpenMinded | December 6, 2009 6:35 PM
I mean honestly, if you are so quick to claim "BS" on these guys and their work you might as well go back in time and hang out with all the people who thought the earth was flat. The first people to claim it was round and that we revolved around the sun were ridiculed even more than these guys today, yet we now know that anyone who considers the earth to be flat is completely ignorant to the information we have available.
You are no better than these "flat earth" society people, by instantly denying and disregarding the information presented as well as the information that has no been publicly presented without proper analysis or research you are hurting the world of science as you know it; its people like this who deny the world the real truth.
I for one applaud these guys in taking an approach on this subject that might seem completely "retarded" to the majority of the scientific world, that means that they are willing to risk everything in order to find the truth; they risk their very careers by stepping out of the box and looking at the same problem/idea/theory but from a different angle, under a different light.
You guys should really open your mind and lighten up, you "assume" these guys are crazy and ignorant but when you assume you make an ASS of yourself
Posted by: OpenMinded IS RIGHT | December 6, 2009 6:51 PM
The author of this blog probably also thinks that "teleportation" is impossible, yet its now physically possible.
Same thing when people saw star wars, they said "lazer beams that kill, no way!" Yet now we have laser weapons that can take out missiles from 150 miles away, and now we are consolidating laser weaponry to be handheld, within the next 25 years laser weaponry will be standard for infantry, and in the next 5 years mortar attacks from enemies will be rendered mute by laser defence technology designed for eliminating over 250 incoming sub-sonic projectiles per minute from a single laser defence battery
TELL ME, where were you when those star wars fan's and even non-fan's claimed laser weaponry was science fiction and pulled straight out of george lucas's ass?
Were you standing next to them yelling "asscrackpottery!" or were you one of the key people in the US government that said "yes thats a good idea, lets research into these lasers for our military, even if everyone in the world thinks its impossible we must at least try"
Well I applaud the people who went against all odds and brought laser technology to the world in less than 40 years, AND YES THIS IS TRUE, THE GOVERNMENT IMMEDIATELY BEGAN RESEARCHING INTO WEAPONIZING LASERS AFTER SEEING IT IN STAR WARS... This is fact, there was no laser technology program designed for weaponry prior to star wars, there was laser tech and research but it was never thought possible to use it as weaponry nor was it even considered "useful" as a weapon, until the potential for laser weaponry was demonstrated in a fictional movie designed for public entertainment.
So drop what you think you know as truth and reality and for once take a leap into the UNKOWN. You are bound to uncover 1000 times more information by researching the unknown than you are going to uncover by regurgitating the same information that you were taught in your "colleges and universities" which by the way are all designed to control information, NOT EXPAND IT. The education systems of the world were never intended for the benefit of the public, they were intended to benefit the system as a whole, thus when something goes against the current system and body of knowledge, DENIAL is the first thing thrown on the table by those who are not willing to question the system presented before them.
Question Authority, Question knowledge, Question EVERYTHING YOU KNOW, until then you are simply a sponge that absorbs whatever you are told, stop being a sponge and start being an information analysis calculator
Posted by: yayeayeayea | December 6, 2009 7:07 PM
By the way, there was no "god" but there were "gods" in the plural sense.
Why do you think so many of the most ancient cultures describe many many god's, its because what they called "gods" are what we call "aliens".
They were considered "gods" because they had technology beyond our wildest dreams(aka traveling faster than the speed of light using particle beam technology, essentially using light as a propellant and controlled gravitational system that eliminates all drag and G-force (aka bending space around the craft). If you have never heard of this information you probably should research into it before saying "this guy is crazy, talking about aliens and moving at faster than the speed of light". Well its apparently not so crazy to thousands of prominent scientists whom never get recognition because their work is in a nature that threatens control over public society; the life of a scientist who works on projects that are above the top secret classification :)
Until you even consider these things to be possible, such as tesla's free energy device, then you are just another close minded biologist who thinks he knows everything and denies all who oppose, the type of scum that tries to control his world beyond his own ability and thus lands himself into a dark hole with no way out; remaining in that dark whole until the vast majority of those whom he wants approval from change their mind and thus he must change his.
Posted by: Freebie Links | December 6, 2009 8:48 PM
Hmm, this is pretty interesting. Except that I don't understand any of it.
Posted by: Alex Howard | December 6, 2009 8:52 PM
No, I'm pretty sure this guy is crazy.
Posted by: enneacontakaienneagon | December 6, 2009 9:23 PM
ya well...on my calculator I plugged in this:
RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10))),RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)))),RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10))),RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10))))),RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10))),RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)))),RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10))),RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)))))) and got 2349865232 where RandI chooses a random integer in between x and y and the x and y are separated by a comma and Rand chooses a random 10 digit number between 0 and 1. To make it work though I needed to multiply the random numbers between 0 and 1 by 10^10. Do I get the Nobel Peace Prize/ Nobel Prize in the field of Mathematics/ Nobel Prize in the field of Physics?
Also I am a 10th grader and I saw the units problem instantly...nice fail guys.
Posted by: crazy | December 6, 2009 9:31 PM
Yay for science, you'll accept and believe only what you want to, conveniently disregarding anything else. its infuriating to see the world being led by blind people
Posted by: Chris | December 6, 2009 9:44 PM
@ #183
I don't think this can be complex, there's no mention of any negative square roots, or trigonometric jazz, or anything else that might cause an i to pop up. Although they do seem to have applied a liberal use of imagination, so maybe I speak too soon...
But the more recent posts, OpenMinded etc:
You are at least correct about the philosophy of science: Question everything unless there is indisputable evidence, and then question it some more. However they have presented approximately zero evidence. But that's not the point.
I'm a mathematician (perhaps an ambitious title, but I try at least), and what I absolutely love about mathematics is that you are always RIGHT or WRONG (ish, see Goedel). And the mathematics these guys have used breaks on so many levels. As people have already said, their use of units are mental, the equation isn't even true, at best a not very good approximation, and as already came up, it rearranges to give Pi as a rational expression of rational numbers. Pi is very very not rational. But I'm occasionally willing to forgive scientists bad approximations.
Then there is their Omega. 0.0123456789?? For starters they don't seem to notice that 0 is mentioned twice. And aside from the arbitrary positioning of the decimal place, there are 10! ways to order the 10 digits. That gives them a choice of a bare minimum of 3628800 arbitrary constants to choose from. No wonder they managed find something almost true.
I could go on...
Chris
Posted by: Jonah WOods | December 6, 2009 9:50 PM
Wow, major cool!
RT
www.be-invisible.ua.tc
Posted by: enneacontakaienneagon | December 6, 2009 10:24 PM
ya well...on my calculator I plugged in this:
RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Ran
d*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI
(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^1
0))),RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),Rand
I(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,R
and*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)))),RandI(R
andI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand
*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10
^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10))),RandI(RandI(Ra
ndI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*1
0^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Ra
nd*10^10,Rand*10^10))))),RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(R
andI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*
10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(R
and*10^10,Rand*10^10))),RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^
10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI
(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Ran
d*10^10)))),RandI(RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Ran
d*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI
(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^1
0))),RandI(RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10),Rand
I(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10)),RandI(RandI(Rand*10^10,R
and*10^10),RandI(Rand*10^10,Rand*10^10))))))
and got 2349865232 where RandI chooses a random
integer in between x and y and the x and y are
separated by a comma and Rand chooses a random 10
digit number between 0 and 1. To make it work
though I needed to multiply the random numbers
between 0 and 1 by 10^10. Do I get the Nobel
Peace Prize/ Nobel Prize in the field of
Mathematics/ Nobel Prize in the field of
Physics?
Also I am a 10th grader and I saw the problem with the units instantly...nice fail guys.
Posted by: Spindler | December 6, 2009 10:43 PM
Atheists. No wonder everyone hates you.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 6, 2009 11:06 PM
And yet you blather on and on from your deep and pathetic ignorance...
Which ignores the "research" which takes the form of unit analysis, which this FAILS.
You mean "speech".
You mean "you're" ("you are").
You mean "leech".
Why should anyone research "lies" or "unreality"?
Nice false analogy, moron.
You can't even do basic mathematics, and you think you do know what reality is?
For anything larger than a quantum system?
You mean "Star Wars".
Only asscrackpots pull their "facts" out of their asses.
Sep 16, 1962 - Realizing the ray's potential, the Pentagon is spending millions of dollars a radical new family of weapons involving the laser.
Nov 25, 1962 - While the military pursues its laser weapons research. it i; also developing laser field equipment.
You mean, be as ignorant as you are?
You mean, believe an asscrackpot like you?
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 6, 2009 11:31 PM
Of course not. But you're putting an equivalence between an abstract and an empirical matter.To think of this another way, say you wanted to infer a rule about nature involving objects and their appearance of falling. If you were doing this, would you just run the test once in one condition and go from there? I hope not.
But think about if you did that mathematically. How many times would you need to demonstrate that two plus two equals four? If you put two counting blocks with two more counting blocks, would you need to run it multiple times to see that there would be 4 counting blocks?
Now can you infer that if you put two apples together with two more apples that you would get four apples? I hope so. Because the mathematics is abstract, it's not dependant on the material.
The question you need to ask yourself is Can 2 + 2 not equal 4 in a base 10 system? Can 2+2=5? Can 2+2=3? No! It can't. The answer cannot be anything other than it is, for if it were any other way (or in the TAG argument created by a God) then it wouldn't be logic - any such logic would merely be an arbitary construct.
In other words, logic and mathematics are self-evident universals. No further explanation necessary.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 6, 2009 11:38 PM
Because we're reasonable and everyone else is not?
Posted by: Anna | December 6, 2009 11:57 PM
Bahahahahahahaha!! This is truly priceless! My night is now complete.
Posted by: Wes | December 7, 2009 12:02 AM
I think we've been shown the ultimate confirmation of the adage, "It's good to have an open mind. But don't open it up some much that your brain falls out."
Posted by: Wes | December 7, 2009 12:04 AM
Oops. Typo at #208. That should read "so much".
Posted by: Ates Goral | December 7, 2009 12:32 AM
I was a little tipsy after enjoying a glass of Madeira. Now, after reading this, I'm feeling nauseous.
Posted by: Charles J. Daniels | December 7, 2009 12:56 AM
"this means that the Earth's orbit, rotation and weight must have been engineered to fit this equation"
Even assuming the values involved are accurate and meaningful, an equation of a correlation cannot prove that such correlation is or is not intentional.
Posted by: janzie | December 7, 2009 1:08 AM
... I think that equation is an incredibly stupid attempt to define the undefinable, and all the replies are written examples of why everyone dislikes atheists. You do realize that about 9/10 of the worlds population disagrees with you guys, right? You all pretend like you're so enlightened, yet all you are able to communicate to the rest of us is how bitter and close minded you are. It nice that you hate God, and it's also nice that you seem to hate everyone that doesn't hate God, but we're all real tired of hearing about it. Join the civilized conversation or please stop talking. Hate is ugly
Posted by: Ben | December 7, 2009 1:19 AM
Well I think that I have another god equation. If you accelerate at one G for one year you get to the speed of light (well close to it anyway).
Posted by: Antz | December 7, 2009 1:27 AM
I don't believe in "God" and I'm shit not good in math but I'll never call myself an Atheist cause Atheists are out to prove something, that God doesn't exist... and Religions, well, they're out to prove something too, that God does exist. The fundamental problem lies not with what you believe in but how you try to impose that belief on others. Both Atheists and Religious people are out to PROVE something. So, it's not what people believe that's the problem, just when those beliefs are imposed on others. So, Athiests are trying so hard to disprove "God" cause they feel that if we disintegrate "God" that we'll have rational thought and logic but in reality rational thought and logic can only happen when people agree to disagree. How can you have positive discussions when you're constantly in defense mode? Obviously, this is the same on both sides of the coin.
People need to stop hatin' and start toleratin'
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 7, 2009 1:37 AM
#214
1)if you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist. that's what the word means
2)atheist aren't out to "prove" god doesn't exist. do yourself a favor and stop buying into the anti-atheist propaganda.
Posted by: Eric | December 7, 2009 1:59 AM
#12 said: "Now do it in cubits."
Holy crap, I think I have a new favorite phrase.
Posted by: Hannah | December 7, 2009 2:20 AM
It makes me sad that these people are based in my hometown - and one of the centres of the Enlightenment!
Also, @ comment 214, atheists are not out to prove that gods don't exist. That is something that's impossible to prove either way (at least by any means currently available to us), and you certainly can't prove a negative. I call myself an atheist because I don't believe gods exist. It doesn't mean I think I can prove that.
Posted by: Blake Callens | December 7, 2009 2:36 AM
Reminds me of Kepler's perfect solids theory, except that Kepler was a real scientist and never tried to say that his unproven theory was law.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 7, 2009 2:55 AM
Why?
The vast bulk of the replies agree with you that the equation is incredibly stupid. Since your reply posits exactly the same thing -- that the equation is incredibly stupid -- doesn't that mean that everyone dislikes you, too?
Not necessarily that high. But sure, call it the majority.
So what?
You sound bitter and close-minded yourself, so how are you any different?
Why would we hate an imaginary being?
What makes you think we do?
Then why did you come here and demonstrate your horrible hypocrisy?
You first.
Have you looked in a mirror lately?
Posted by: Mr T | December 7, 2009 2:58 AM
Antz:
Right, so it's actually "rational" and "logical" for me to agree to disagree with someone who says 2 + 2 = 5. I also assume that if someone says "War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery" or "Ignorance is Strength", it would be rational for me to agree to disagree.... Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong about the nature of rational thought and logic. I don't "hate" religious believers. I just don't accept absurd beliefs. I also don't accept that I should tolerate or remain silent about absurd beliefs that harm society.Posted by: Owlmirror | December 7, 2009 3:01 AM
More of a hypothesis, not a theory (in modern scientific terms, anyway). And his hypothesis was not just unproven, but disproven: The data actually contradicted any correlation with the geometric shapes.
But yes, he then scrapped it and came up with theories (well, laws) that matched the data.
Posted by: Bendixen | December 7, 2009 3:33 AM
Let me parody the logic.
Hl⋅π∕Ω=C
The speed of light = giggling hydrogen atoms spewing photons in the FM band, times the circumference of the unit circle decided by some constant.
light is photons and the circumference of the unit circle is a line.
Then it must follow that
The speed of photons = lots of photons in the FM band times the length of a line divided by some constant
Then
the speed of photons minus lots of photons = lots of photons in the FM band - lots of photons times the length of a line divided by some constant.
But then again, some constant = the length of a line and the FM band = gods radio channel.
Thus
Gods radio channel = 0, and does therefore not exist.
By the by, the Stonehenge is a god channel receiver.
Posted by: anathema pasta | December 7, 2009 3:55 AM
I always thought the "God Equation" was "P = NP"
Posted by: intimitated | December 7, 2009 4:12 AM
You know I get questioning the science. Seriously. Fundamentalist Christians are so eager to find "proof" that they will latch on to half researched science. But 90% of the articles Ive read on this "God Equation" are cultic angry atheists using manipulative language, ad hominem arguments, and infered pressure of peer-pressure threats to try to force a conclusion through intimidation. I'm tired of all of the agenda based religious extremists (including atheists who often are the MOST hostile and blinded by their religious subjectivity) trying to force their opinions over objective study. If there is data that indicates the possibility of an engineered universe, I want to look at it objectively without all of the baggage and an hominem inference.
Unfortunately since disproving the existence of a sentient creator being seems to be the primary motivation of most self admited atheists, they turn out to be the worst scientists in that they have lost their objectivity.
Posted by: Fleegman | December 7, 2009 4:48 AM
Guys, seriously, I think you've been taken in by a bit of a joke.
I was initially dismayed when I read they were fellow Brits, but then took heart when I realised it was obviously a parody.
I mean, it reads just like an article from The Onion: "0.0123456789 representing all the characters of the base 10 number system."
Or are you all in on it, and I'm the one playing catch up?
Posted by: James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil | December 7, 2009 5:22 AM
Even if this were true, as it obviously is not, how does it prove the existence of a god? What it could show is that there are physical laws at work that we have yet to understand.
Much as the ancient Egyptians could fly if they had understood the laws of aerodynamics. The had bamboo, linen, papyrus, and all the materials to build gliders that, with the winds and thermals in the Nile valley, could have traveled hundreds of miles. But they didn't know, so they didn't go.
There could be natural laws as yet unknown to us that would permit us to do things as wondrous to us as flying would have been to the Pharaohs, who would have thought that the work of gods.
Posted by: scott | December 7, 2009 5:48 AM
I think we've been shown the ultimate confirmation of the adage, "It's good to have an open mind. But don't open it up some much that your brain falls out."..
Posted by: hermpes | December 7, 2009 6:30 AM
Ω is the symbol for Ohms. Ohms are the unit of measurement for electronic resistance. what ohms have to do with gods is beyond me. maybe electrons are little god particles and we must measure how much god is being resisted to measure him? huh? lulz
Posted by: amazed | December 7, 2009 6:52 AM
If all calculations are done with 9 significant digits and the result is adjusted for speed of light in air vs. vacuum, C is calculated within 1/millionth of a percent!
Hl: 1420405.8
pi: 3.1415927
omega: 0.0123456789
ML: 0.82966
refractive index of air: 1.000292
(Hl.Pi.Ml/Omega)/refIdxAir = 299792453
C actual = 299792458
Posted by: Mathew | December 7, 2009 7:40 AM
I like turtles.
Posted by: Denise McTighe | December 7, 2009 8:42 AM
Well...Nietsche will be disappointed
Posted by: bribina | December 7, 2009 9:11 AM
Type fail!
Posted by: bRAINFROG | December 7, 2009 9:33 AM
Amazed, your HL has 8, Pi has 8, omega has 9 and yout ML has 5, your index has 4. because your index is the least exact you can only use 4 significant figures.
Posted by: Bishadi | December 7, 2009 9:43 AM
Planck screwed up imposing a macro analogy of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics into h (1901 publication)
energy is not bound to d/t (speed)
and that is the ignorance of today's paradigm
this whole frame is incorrect
Posted by: Kidd | December 7, 2009 9:49 AM
The symbol of "Ω" is very obviously a statue in Dwarf Fortress. Anyone familiar with Dwarf Fortress knows that its sub title is Slaves to Armok: God of Blood, which proves that the formula for proving the existence of God was written by God himself, a sort of signature upon a signature. Or its like God tattooing "God is Awesome" on himself.
With the undeniable reference to this religious material inside the truly scientific equation, is it apparent that Atheists should be banned and evicted from humanity altogether.
Posted by: mstr of the universe (and beyond) | December 7, 2009 9:59 AM
wow discovered that when everything on the left is constant right will be constant too. And of course it's convenient that changing any value on the left will lead you to the same conclusion.
If every problem is a nail, every solution will be a (well f# it you're a tool).
Posted by: autoegocrat | December 7, 2009 11:49 AM
A mathematician from St. Paul
Had a hexahedronical ball
The cube of its weight
Plus his pecker, times eight
Is his phone number, give him a call!
Posted by: PJ | December 7, 2009 12:04 PM
Not hard to see why atheists have such an uphill battle.
Read these posts. They take someone's findings and feel compelled to fill cyberspace with unprofessional unit analysis, which is fine, but when you couple that with blatant insults and obvious attacks, you just make yourselves out to be asses.
How do you expect anyone to believe you're of an objective scientific mind when your main defense is half baked Wikipedia science mixed with snarky, useless remarks?
Go write a paper in a scientific journal that debates this so people can peer review YOUR crap too instead of hiding behind blogs.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/tL1MkU0ghY0gNMrxrvSjJFsEYJYQ0ZIPjQ--#5f870
|
December 7, 2009 12:26 PM
Stupid to the point of holiness -- Russian proverb
All xian idiocies will be revealed unto you if only you pay attention to the wisdom of the great xian apostolic "father" Tertullian (160-220 CE). He's usually misquoted as averring: "Credo quia absurdum." (I believe because it is absurd.)
What Tertullian affirmed reguarding the alleged resurrection of the xman: "[C]ertum est, quia impossibile." (It is certain, because it is impossible.)
Xianity presented this way (as fideism) cannot be argued with or disproved -- it must be dismantled.
The de-deification of Western culture (including the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.
the anti_supernaturalist
Posted by: maddyemayhem | December 7, 2009 12:37 PM
EAT SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!! LOTS AND LOTS OF SHIT!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: RickD | December 7, 2009 12:38 PM
Perhaps if the author had used "footlongs per fortnight", his lack of seriousness would have been more apparent.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 7, 2009 12:42 PM
Are you pushing some new diet you tried?
Posted by: rob | December 7, 2009 12:52 PM
an equation cannot be correct if the units don't work out the same on both sides.
the "god equation" does not have correct units, therefor it is not correct.
i chuckled at:
"tractus ex anus"
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 7, 2009 1:07 PM
Your hypocritical concern is so noted.
Posted by: Alexis | December 7, 2009 2:21 PM
I read the omega symbol as "headphones" and realized that this guy is unplugged.
Posted by: Lily | December 7, 2009 3:18 PM
God
MWAH!
Posted by: Foo Man Choo | December 7, 2009 3:34 PM
Hey all -
Has anyone actually read the Hiram Key? It is quite interesting and recommended if you are at all curious about the origins of Christianity. It doesn't read as it was by a 'crack pot' at all. Actually, the arguments he makes are interesting and plausible. The idea that Masonic lore extends to the ancient hebrew invasions of the first kingdom egyptians. Moreover, it talks of a specific a man by the name of Sequenare Tao - whose mummy, btw, has been found to have the exact same wounds that the Masonic stories have told. the interesting point here is that the lore predates the mummy's discovery. What he doesn't touch on is the fact that the Mormons are also quite interested in Sequenere Tao's blood line and have mapped out his ancestors in excruciating detail. Whatever you want to think about the author, the subject matter that he writes about is historically accurate.
Now the God equation? Hmm. Not so sure.
Posted by: vic marcucci | December 7, 2009 6:03 PM
God is not irrational. Nature doesn't use pi. Water isn't H 3.14... O. Beware of egomaniacs who think they've contacted the almighty.
Posted by: C.Edward Kushner | December 7, 2009 8:30 PM
I thought the God Equation was α=Ω.
Posted by: MartinM | December 7, 2009 8:33 PM
And...what journal would that be, exactly?
Posted by: msteeman | December 8, 2009 5:27 AM
Comment number 42 is divine in its own way.
Posted by: rickyh | December 8, 2009 5:30 AM
I do not trust articles written in "Comic Sans MS"... Have you ever written a paper in this font before and been taken seriously?
Posted by: bc | December 8, 2009 5:36 AM
Oh dear! There seems to be a shared trait between skeptics and kooks, which is a tendency to take everything too seriously.
By the time you get to the definition of omega, you should realise this "God Equation" is a spoof.
Posted by: John Gabriel | December 8, 2009 5:38 AM
And still a few months before April Fool's day...
Posted by: Scott | December 8, 2009 5:53 AM
Trying to be serious for a moment:
Religion is created when mankind is faced with something too large and complex to understand. When ancient Norse saw Lightening, they obviously were not at a stage of development to understand its cause - therefore it MUST be thunderbolts thrown down from Valhalla by the God Thor... And if anyone disagreed they get their heads chopped off with an axe for blasphemy!
The Ancient Egyptians were at the mercy of the rhythms of the flooding and drying of the Nile which controlled life and death in an unexplainable way - Oh its that damn Crocodile headed God Sobek at work, OBVIOUSLY. Lets sacrifice a few Thoth-worshipper slaves to appease him!
Christianity, for all its pretences, is no different in its barbaric stupidity and primitive ignorance. All religions do is keep us in the dark ages of ignorance hold us back for advancement because the institutes which unphold religions are really only there to influence their own control and wealth.
This is exactly the same thing. We are in our very early development of understanding space - we have barely crawled to the closest planet and we somehow think in sheer utter arrogance that we somehow already understand the equation of the unvierse?! It is very unlikely that we will ever fully understand the Universe because by dfefinition something infinite will provide infinite challenges and study, so to try and claim that we undertand it now in our time of development is sheer lunacy.
When faced with something so gigantically complex and awe-inspiring, its too much for our feeble human brians to cope with and so we turn as we have always done to rfeligion to explain what we dont understand. Its apthetic. Its like SDawrin bashers seeing complex design in nature and not understanding science properly think that therefore it must be God at work.
'God' is just a word humans use when they cant understand something and are too stupid, lazy and/or lack the will to try and study it to learn knowledge.
The massive point that this article stupidly glosses over is this: even if earth does fit exactly with their so called 'equation' that does not proove is must have been artificially engineered. The arrogance and lack of science beghind this assertion is absurd. The Universe is infinite, therefore it has infinite number of combinations, effects, environments and random combinations of forces and matter. This is exactly the same as the natural world - infinite veriety and combinations comes up with complicated intricate forms of life, and therefore the Universe comes up with infinite combinations of planets.
It is insulting our intelligence to turn to 'God' like primitives when we don't understand soemthing.
Posted by: Chris | December 8, 2009 5:56 AM
What more can be said?
Of course we are all part of a grand design, for anyone to assume that we evolved is foolish! Some people demand evidence, why can't you can't take some things on faith?(!)
I only found God a few years ago, but now I understand. Through my own natural logical thought processes I analyzed life, after years of research and exploration I have come to the only conclusion that makes sense!
When we stop fighting against the truth, everything then will become clear. Just realise this, mainstream religions is biased and based on fear. What kind of God would we have if he/she/it was jealous? There is a universal level of karma that keeps us in check in our lives on Earth, hopefully our conscience, our inherited knowledge will guide the way for our lives to be lived out in a meaningful manor.
I do agree that Comic Sans is a bad choice of font too... but then again, that is our God given right, freedom of choice!!
Posted by: god | December 8, 2009 6:15 AM
Are these the same gormless researchers who thought up global warming
Posted by: Jonas | December 8, 2009 6:16 AM
Two sides of the same coin. Two types of asshole trying to prove their theory over the other. Two types of people wanting people to believe their theory because the other is sheer ludicracy. Two types of people who will argue to great lengths over who is real and who is not real.
Let's face it, Atheists and Christians were made for eachother. Can't you just hold hands and dance around in fields? If either one of you are trying to be "logical" and "open-minded", why don't you both just say "Ok, the other person has an opinion and i'll embrace it" rather than "RAWR NO! MY ELITISM FOR MY CHOSEN PREFERENCE HAS PROGRAMMED MY BRAIN TO DEFEND MY THEORY! RAWR!"
But, of course, Jesus envisioned peace, and we don't want those Atheists or Christians to be (to borrow owlmirrors obvious word of the year) hypocrites, do we?
And before anyone asks, I'm Agnostic. I'd like to believe there is a God, but I believe there is a lot more behind it than most of you, Atheists and Christians alike, seem to be open to.
Posted by: madbull | December 8, 2009 6:46 AM
Yeah I believe in polka dotted dancing penguins appearing under my bed, anyone who doesnt believe the same is a nut just like me.
You are the smart Agnostic :)
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | December 8, 2009 8:28 AM
Wow.
I've never yet seen a thread so throughly hijacked by
ravingfoaming at the mouthopen minded lunatics.Posted by: comforter | December 8, 2009 11:04 AM
dear brothers & sisters,
methinks there is far too much neural energy going on in this thread.
Please get a good cup of tea, and go into the garden.
Ecclesiastes 12, and the twitter of some little birds may be just the tonic for mental refreshment.
God bless you all warmly and richly.
comforter
Posted by: john | December 8, 2009 11:14 AM
what a load of fucking rubbish, if only my arse could talk..
Posted by: btljs | December 8, 2009 11:53 AM
All things believed by somebody become true to them. The fallacy is to try and search for a universal truth. There is no such thing as objectivity - science is slowly coming round to this idea via quantum theory; religions are slowly (ever so slowly) starting to accept each other's existence. The only thing you can ever be sure of is your own ignorance.
Posted by: call_me_dave | December 8, 2009 11:59 AM
They sound like they had a hand in making up the Anthropogenic Global warming Scam. That one is as ridiculous as this.
Posted by: Ben | December 8, 2009 12:22 PM
The megalithic measurement system is widely discreditted, but hey, I can use it to prove god!
Later analysis of Thom's data has raised numerous questions regarding his approach however and professional archaeologists treat his ideas with scepticism. Thom's measurements of some circles have been found to be up to 0.3m out and for other broken or sub-circular monuments he studied, the precise diameter is open to question anyway. Local variations have been identified in measurement data from different parts of the British Isles suggesting that there was no centrally decreed 'yard' and it has been argued that body measurements such as the cubit would have been more likely to have been used. Anthropological studies of modern stone-using tribes have also been employed to suggest that Neolithic Britons would not have had a numbering system complex enough to create advanced geometric forms using such surveying techniques and that elliptical enclosures are the results of attempts to mark out circles by eye or to align a long axis on astronomical features. The lack of serious corroborating evidence from continental Europe should also be mentioned. Archaeology or sometimes in American English archeology (from the Greek words αρχαίος = ancient and λόγος = word/speech) is the study of human cultures through the recovery, documentation and analysis of material remains, including architecture, artefacts, biofacts, human remains, and landscapes. ... Cubit is the name for any one of many units of measure used by various ancient peoples, based on the distance between the tip of the middle finger and the elbow on an average person or a similar forearm-based measurement. ... Anthropology (from the Greek word άνθÏωπος, human) consists of the study of humankind (see genus Homo). ...
Until such a time as a Neolithic measuring rod is excavated, the theory remains unproved
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 8, 2009 12:35 PM
Whoa... almost got clipped by that random drive by stupid...
Posted by: Dave | December 8, 2009 12:59 PM
BS, in its purest form.
Posted by: gelatoallimon
|
December 9, 2009 1:06 PM
the sole fact that the article/email was written in comic sans should be enough to dismiss its validity from the beginning
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
December 9, 2009 1:15 PM
Welcome, gelatoallimon! Stick around for a bit and get accustomed to our strange ways.
Or check the page source:
Posted by: dutchdoc
|
December 12, 2009 9:35 AM
Regarding David Cumming's "God Equation":
For people who can read Dutch: here's a link to a humorous parody on deriving the weirdest formula's and 'proofs' from some simple measurements in ones own house, by astronomer and former chairman of the Dutch Skeptic Society "Skepsis", Kees de Jager:
http://www.skepsis.nl/schemerlamp.html
(Wish someone would translate this: it's hilarious!)
Posted by: Robin Lionheart
|
January 11, 2010 3:29 PM
See http://www.xkcd.com/687/ for another awesome fundamental equation.
Posted by: argle_bargle
|
January 13, 2010 2:29 AM
I'm glad I can say... SIMPSONS DID IT! SIMPSONS DID IT!
And not even Lisa or Professor Frink or some other smart non-Simpson character in the show... but Homer!
Not only that, Homer did it twice. Once proving God didn't exist, which he gave to Flanders who then burnt it, and once to determine the exact moment of the Rapture... after carrying the correct number of people at the last supper by counting Jesus as the 13th.
Plus his equations were more showy and impressive.
Posted by: Alex
|
May 14, 2010 5:50 AM
I read The Scotsman for local news and this morning they included a story about this gentleman. It is completely impenetrable:
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/Scientist-finds-meaning-of-Dan.6295220.jp
It struck me that whatever he had "discovered" was either horribly written up by the paper, or simply a load of balls. I found your post here and suffice to say I have drawn the latter conclusion. The full press release which I've since been able to track down makes it a bit more clear exactly why it's bollocks.
http://www.beattiegroup.com/prclients/pr-press-releases.aspx?news=31&id=10634
Posted by: ~Raze~
|
June 8, 2010 12:29 AM
Here is another God equation:
(the diameter of a dime x the thickness of a dime) + (the diameter of a silver dollar x the thickness of a silver dollar x 1/milimeter) = the acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the earth.
Let me show you:
(17.91 (mm) * 1.35 (mm)) + ( 38.1 (mm) * 2.58 (mm)/mm )
(2.41785 × 10^-5 m^2) + 9.8 cm
Now ignore all units
= 9.82
Presto! Correct to within the second decimal place!
Posted by: Marek
|
June 17, 2010 6:46 PM
Have a look at this:
The Truth about Creation or The Big Bang Theory commonly explained.
When I was still a teenager, in my fourteens, my father called me to his watch-making workshop, sat me down on the top of his lap swinging to the left and to the right along with the tick-tack’s sound of the grandfather clock’s pendulum coming from the furthest corner of the room, he said:
“Close your eyes my son and imagine, just imagine”,
“Imagine what?” I said,
“Imagine the world. Imagine the whole universe” he said calmly
“That would be difficult” I replied,
But when he pushed me out off of this earthly environment view into Space, helping me to create and build another view about surrounding me cosmos by adding into the imagined picture every part of the existing visible and invisible world; all existing planets, suns, moons, comets, stars, pulsars, quasars, galaxies and all possible imaginable objects of the all existing space between here and there, moving me away from the Solar system, further and further away, passing by all those visible objects and other, he ended me up somewhere where I have just passed the last, or I’d rather say the first star dust, somewhere a few …illiard light years away from our planet Earth, somewhere where I ended up in a deep-deep dark matter drifting away further and further somewhere where I could not see anything, somewhere where I could not hear anything, somewhere where I did not feel anything or any motion. There was a silence, just motionless silence, nothing else but darkness and silence. Inertia. Total inertia.
He kept me within this motionless stage for some time when with the same calm voice he asked the first question:
‘Imagine it? Are you?’
‘Yes’, I nodded,
‘…’
‘…’
‘Now my son’ he simply said, ‘Draw a straight line right across this image of yours, divide it into two pieces, into two halves. Not equal ones! There is nothing like equal halves existing in the entire universe. There is no single particle equal with another… not to mention about a half of the universe. Put one of the cut halves aside and the other half divide in the same manner into two (halves). Continue. Continue cutting remaining halves until it become so small that you have to use a magnifying glass to continue. Continue. Then when it becomes so small again that you have to use a microscope to continue, continue. Continue cutting until you have to use the most powerful electronic microscope on earth to continue. Continue. Continue until you have to only use the most powerful imaginary microscope to continue. Continue’, he said.
Then he asked:
‘When or will you ever be able to cut “the last half”? If anything like that “the last half” exist? There will be always a remaining half ready to be cut and divided into two indefinitely’, he added.
‘For some time the world of science is discovering what metaphysical and spiritual teachers have known for centuries. The physical world is not really composed of any matter at all; the basic component of it is a force or essence, which is called energy. Things appear to be solid and separate from each other where our physical senses normally perceive them. While on the atomic and subatomic level, a solid matter is a cluster of small particles. Particles within particle called sub-particles. Bosons, which are assumed to be massless. They were detected by high-energy experiments at the CERN laboratories in 1983. Weinberg, Salam, and Glashow shared the 1979 Nobel Prize for physics for their model, protons, and eventually photons which turn out to be just pure energy’, they said.
The speed of light may be the only constant in the universe. Everything else changes! Mr. Einstein observed that matter could be converted into energy just as energy was converted into matter (and anti-matter) when the universe was created. If everything changes, so the speed of light, too, is changeable.
As it was in 1989 scientists proposed this theory that there is no single sub-particle equal with another sub-particle in the entire universe, ‘Let’s apply this theory to an equation. Let’s try it on the equation of: E=MC2 ‘, he said.
An equation is a mathematical statement, expressed in symbols, that two things are the same (or equivalent). Equations are written with an equal sign ‘=’. Equations are often used to state the equality of two expressions containing one or more variables.
An equation contains left & right side.
When the left side of the equation is ‘E’ – one particle
the right side of the equation is ‘MC2’ – another particle,
logically speaking;
one particle = another particle
Above equation is untrue.
one sub-particle ≠ another sub-particle
Above equation might be or is true.
When the left side of equation is not equal ‘≠’ with the right side, then
E = MC2
Above equation is untrue,
Because and especially that there is a progress; power 2, then
E ≠ MC2
Above equation might be or is true.
When the left side is not equal with the right side of equation it must be then
smaller or greater, > or
Then the left side can be or is only
E
When variable mass symbol M is replaced by photon symbol Φ
E
Above equation might be or is true,
When the power ‘2’ is replaced by power to ‘3, 4, 5, 6, 7’…etc. or ‘∞’ (to infinity) then the left side of the equation is definitely not equal with the right side because there is even greater progress, then
E
e
‘e is a perfect half, rest of it is an illusion’, look at it he said,
‘all it is illusion’.
‘There are still some who believe that the speed of light may be the only constant in the whole universe, everything else changes. If everything changes so the speed of light does. Everything is energy. Energy is everything. Everything is a light/photon in the infinite speed of light’.
Einstein's statement that 'the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion' comes from a letter he wrote to the family of his lifelong friend Michele Besso on 21 March 1955, Einstein Archive, 7-245, published in The Quotable Einstein (Princeton University Press, 1996), p.61.
The Big Bang Theory commonly explained.
Just follow the sequence of opening of the Russian Doll, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll and keep it opening to Infinity.
e
Posted by: Marek
|
June 17, 2010 6:50 PM
What a crappy blog.
I cannot even use ordinary letters to write.
So much of missing data on my post.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2010 6:53 PM
Summarize your tl;dr point...Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 17, 2010 6:57 PM
Marek,
You’re diatribe above is neither good math or physics, and it most certainly not an evidence for creation. It’s a bunch of non-sense play on numbers all meant to “help” your presupposed woo. The scientific literature is against you.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 17, 2010 7:06 PM
smaller or greater, > or
Then the left side can be or is only
E
When variable mass symbol M is replaced by photon symbol Φ
E
Above equation might be or is true,
When the power ‘2’ is replaced by power to ‘3, 4, 5, 6, 7’…etc. or ‘∞’ (to infinity) then the left side of the equation is definitely not equal with the right side because there is even greater progress, then
E
e
‘e is a perfect half, rest of it is an illusion’, look at it he said,
‘all it is illusion’.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 17, 2010 7:06 PM
Under this idiot's premise 4/2 has not true answer. Likewise, He (helium) does not equal He, so therefore it should have no consistant quality. Scientific literature proves that false. Aslo the tl;dr post also said the relativity equation isn't true but cared not explain why. Finally, he's trying to use this to disprove evolution under the false assumption that evolution = abiogenesis and physics. It's pure sophistry (bad one at that), no science at all.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 17, 2010 7:08 PM
The fault is not with the blog, but with yourself.
The blog software allows for HTML markup.
HTML markup includes the < and > characters.
When you use the < and > characters, the comment software thinks that you want to include some HTML.
When the < and > characters are unbalanced, it thinks that you have tried to post mangled HTML, and "corrects" it by eliminating it, as it did with your post.
You need to understand how to post the < and > characters in such a way that the blog software prints them directly.
Anyway, given that you've been crapping your post all over the Internet, all you really needed to do was post a single short link. Would that have been so hard?
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 17, 2010 7:12 PM
You are familiar with this troll, Owlmirror?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2010 7:14 PM
Thanks Gyeong. Gee, why don't these idjits either cite the scientific literature, or shut the fuck up, by not posting such idiocy in the first place? Must be a delusional fool. There are only two logical and scientific options are open to them. Show the conclusive and scientific evidence from the peer reviewed literature, or don't embarrass yourself by posting nonsense. Any other option shows their lack of scientific evidence, and presuppositions (id est, delusional thinking). As if we wouldn't notice...Posted by: Marek
|
June 17, 2010 7:14 PM
Go to the link below and concentrate on studying the case:
http://www.visutech.net/peace365/index.asp?pageID=86
Have fun.
My father said: Uncle Al made a slight mistake about his equation.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 17, 2010 7:42 PM
I got this far in the tl;dr post:
If someone says they were a teenager and then gives their age, then I know they're going to be long winded and repetitiously redundant. I didn't bother to continue reading.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2010 7:46 PM
You either explain your post here, or you have nothing cogent. A fool showing his ignorance at this stage. Get with the program, and show your evidence on this thread, or shut the fuck up!!! Welcome to real science, not your inane idea of it...Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 17, 2010 8:01 PM
No, I just guessed that he was copying-and-pasting, and that if was doing it here, he had probably done it elsewhere. So I googled a phrase in the screed, and sure enough, 20-odd Ghits.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 17, 2010 8:52 PM
For humans, the speed of light may be the only constant in the whole universe
for angels, there is no light speed limit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2010 8:59 PM
Citation from the peer reviewed scientific literature, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, not delusion...Posted by: Marek
|
June 17, 2010 9:15 PM
This is the real science.
The real science of God.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 17, 2010 9:24 PM
Do not judge the whole story by reading only its beginning that is unfair.
But when you apply common sense to the Russian Doll, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll ,
it makes sense, common sense in science.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 17, 2010 9:31 PM
No, it's perfectly fair. When you show that you can't put out the effort to write intelligently then why should I read what you wrote? Does it make any difference about how old you were when your father spun his silly story about "Al got his sums wrong"?
Posted by: Marek
|
June 17, 2010 9:40 PM
I shall shut the fuck up when you answer me to that famous Socrates's question: WHY?
Citation from the peer reviewed scientific literature King's James Version:
Acts 17:22-33 (King James Version)
22Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 17, 2010 9:56 PM
No, the burden of proof is on you Merak. And the bible is not an authoritative source on anything. But let me ask you? why the bible? Why not Shinto creationism, under you're false evidence Shinto is equally valid. You see, you have nothing but presupposition and confirmation bias. And thus we disregard you and your bible.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 17, 2010 9:59 PM
WHY?
BECAUSE.
now kindly fuck off.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2010 10:16 PM
What a fool. Until you prove both your imaginary deity and that the babble isn't a book of fiction/mythology, that is nothing but hot air. What a loser...What deity? Nothing but presupposition, and all presupposition arguments are false loser...Ah, the loser question. Why isn't as important as how. Science explains the how. The why doesn't need an unproven imaginary deity. Pure chance suffices. Got an eternally burning bush in your back pocket, which would provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity? If not, you have nothing but your opinion, which we have proven unreliable. Learn some science. It saves you from having pie on your face...Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 17, 2010 10:25 PM
Got an eternally burning bush
I hear there are treatments for that.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 17, 2010 10:25 PM
The bible provides support for entirely one claim: that there exists a book written by people who believed in the god of the Israelites.
Outside of that it's not useful for very much of anything - and certainly not as a means to support an argument for the existence of that god, any more than the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is able to provide evidence for the existence of basilisks or phoenix(es?).
Posted by: Marek
|
June 17, 2010 10:57 PM
People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus]
People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.
— Martin Luther, theologian (1483-1546)
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 17, 2010 10:59 PM
People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus]
in HIS day, he was ten times more knowledgeable than you are NOW.
that should tell you something, but I'm reasonably sure it won't.
just know aside from being annoyed, the undercurrent you should be feeling in response to your drivel is...
laughter.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 17, 2010 11:10 PM
Marek,
Inane, irrelevant quotations ≠ argument/evidence.
Try again.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2010 11:11 PM
Marek, every biblical quotation you provide, and every bit of theology thereof, without proving your imaginary deity exists and your mythical/fictional babble is anything other than nonsense, shows you are a delusional fool. Either start proving your imaginary deity, or shut the fuck up like the loser you are. Evidence, which you aren't providing, makes your case. Try the peer reviewed scientific literature, found a institutions of higher learning world wide. Which you obviously are totally unfamiliar with. An eternally burning bush would suffice. Something that can by shown by scientist, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientific), origin. We are waiting...
Posted by: Marek
|
June 17, 2010 11:13 PM
Yes, I am laughing!!! :-)
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 17, 2010 11:18 PM
No, what you're hearing is us laughing at you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2010 11:24 PM
Laughing is not evidence. Especially if we are laughing at you. Try real evidence.Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
June 17, 2010 11:27 PM
Nerd: Do you have that boilerplate (#302) as like a Mad-Lib in a handy document somewhere, or do you type it afresh each time you need it?
Anyway, I admire your tenacity. I can't even bring myself to read anymore of this Marek character. Hurts my mind. Bedways is rightways for me now. Time for a bit of spatchka.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 17, 2010 11:28 PM
Yes, I am laughing!!! :-)
"It is not I who am crazy, it is I who am mad!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0Tux6s7y_g
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2010 11:42 PM
I type it afresh. I only have a small amount of boilerplate on my home computer. My ancient work computer is hopeless for multitasking. Time for bed here too. Tomorrow I have the pleasure of cleaning the glassware I dirtied this week. Big expensive glassware.Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 18, 2010 12:41 AM
Merak quotes Martin Luther. Martin Luther also said that Reason must be killed by every Christian. Makes sense that Merak can't reason through why his argument is useless. Also he never answered my question? The Maize God is angry that you are denying his existance.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 18, 2010 9:58 AM
Could you repeat your question Gyeong Hwa Pak, please?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 18, 2010 10:05 AM
Marek, quit playing the presupposition game (done by losers without evidence) and show solid and conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Then prove your babble is inerrant, and your theology isn't mental masturbation. We are waiting for real evidence, not idiocy...
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 18, 2010 10:21 AM
Oh hey, a troll.
Trying to catch up and figure if this one is either: (i) worth arguing with, (ii) good only for insult practice, or (iii) stark raving nuts.
Oh. Outlook is not good.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 18, 2010 6:14 PM
What's your question Gyeong?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 18, 2010 6:21 PM
Marek, read the thread. It is there. We are still waiting for your evidence for your imaginary deity. What a delusional fool...
Posted by: Marek
|
June 18, 2010 7:50 PM
A scientist was doing a research on behavioral reaction of insects to audio commands.
He caught a fly and pulled off all its wings.
He commanded to the fly:
Fly! - the fly did not react.
He commanded to the fly:
Go! - the fly crawled off.
He marked in his note book:
after pulling wings off of a fly, the fly went off crawling.
Continuing his research this time the scientist pulled off all of the fly's legs.
He commanded to the fly:
Fly! - the fly did not react.
Go! - the fly did not react.
He took his note book and marked:
after pulling wings and legs off of the fly and audio commands,
the fly has lost its hearing.
What is the question Gyeong? …he never answered to?…
Posted by: Marek
|
June 18, 2010 9:17 PM
Says whom?In answer to this, we conveniently defer once more to Isaac Newton who, as we recall, believed that the Bible, at least in a general sense, held the solution to virtually every puzzle.
Says Sir Isaac.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 18, 2010 9:22 PM
Says whom?
your quote is irrelevant.
please list exactly which verses are authoritative, verifiable treatises on any particular subject.
fuck me, but the thing actually suggests you can get striped animals by breeding them in front of striped sticks.
so, balls in your court.
what passages are authoritative treatises, and on which subjects?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 18, 2010 9:22 PM
Reality.
And he was wrong. Sorry, we don't have prophets in science. In bright people who lived 300 years ago can be dead wrong.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 18, 2010 9:23 PM
Anybody who actually read the bible cover to cover like I have.Your inane attempt to argue from authority fails big time. Newton knew physics. He was delusional about the bible, just like you are. Still no physical evidence for your deity, much less the inerrancy of the babble. What a loser.Time to put up, or shut the fuck up. I recommend the latter, since we both know you have nothing but attitude, which is not evidence.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 18, 2010 9:23 PM
Isaac Newton also practiced alchemy. Just because someone is a genius in one or more fields doesn't mean he's a genius, or even reasonably intelligent, in other, unrelated fields.
We're atheists. We don't accept the Bible as authoritative for anything. After all, the Bible tells us π=3.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 18, 2010 9:24 PM
Arghh, that should read:
Even bright people who lived 300 years ago can be dead wrong.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 18, 2010 9:34 PM
And “We” Shall be as Gods
It is said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts abso-lutely. So, apparently, does knowledge. With their superior intellect, these evil spirits had succumbed to the sin that became the downfall of Lucifer: pride (1 Timothy 3:6). But more than mere pride, such knowledge wedded to an already arrogant nature had led to self- deification, thus fulfilling the demons’ desire to receive religious wor-ship and to rule over men. And from such men, these demons, or “gods,” would demand an unending flow of blood and sacrifice.
Here, then, is where our story picks up with the Maya.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 18, 2010 9:36 PM
Marek wrote:
Marek, there's a three-word mantra that I, as a writer, live by: show, don't tell.
I mention it here because it's also a great mantra to apply to other aspects of life, including any occasion you have where you're trying to make a point. Want people to think you're strong? Don't tell, them, show them - pick up something really heavy with one hand, or tear a phone book in half.
Likewise with this kind of debate. Telling us that Sir Isaac Newton found all kind of answers in the bible means absolutely nothing - but if you could show us how this claim was demonstrated by Sir Isaac, using specific examples and citing where this information can be found for independent analysis, then we might actually listen to you rather than mock and ridicule you for the inanity of your woo-soaked stupidity.
Make sense?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 18, 2010 9:40 PM
Total presupposition on your part. All such evidenceless presuppositions are false.Fool, you haven't proved your deity, much less the inerrancy of the babble. And then you cite it like it is an authority. One you haven't proved. What a loser.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 18, 2010 9:44 PM
If you were really as smart as you pretend, you would have given this idea thusly:
But that sounds like something on a t-shirt.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 18, 2010 9:48 PM
According to the propaganda god is all powerful. Draw your own conclusion.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 18, 2010 9:53 PM
Omnicorrupt?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 18, 2010 9:56 PM
Mmmm, the
forceincoherence is strong in this one.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 18, 2010 10:02 PM
So, apparently, does knowledge.
then you must be the purest intellect on the planet.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 18, 2010 10:07 PM
Dude, you wanna know what happened to the Maya? They were conquered, enslaved and massacred by Christians spreading your religion. Did you really want to go with that example?
Incidentally, I'm part Native American and European, which may explain my self-conflicting nature. :p
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 18, 2010 10:20 PM
My favourite fstdt.com quote:
If knowledge and learning are such problems, then get off your computer. The reason that you're even able to have this conversation is not because of magic blue smoke, and it's not because of angels kissing. It's because people have studied Nature, taking observations and constructing explanations. It's because the process is successful that we have computers and electricity today. If you can't embrace science in its understanding of the universe then get off your computer. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocrite - using science when it suits you and denying it when it contradicts a bronze-age mythology.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 19, 2010 1:29 PM
Unshared knowledge is wasted.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 19, 2010 1:34 PM
Since you have no knowledge, just unevidenced presuppositional beliefs, you have nothing to share with us. Surprise!Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 19, 2010 1:50 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
If I know my creationists, he's accusing us of not reading the Bible. He can't seem to reason through the fact that reading the Bible often causes the dismissal of it.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 19, 2010 2:00 PM
By that logic, the all-powerful and all-knowing God is the most corrupt entity that does exist or can exist. QED.
Because corruption is good?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 19, 2010 2:02 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak, Das unzufiedene Pikachu
NoR #319Evidently he is also illiterate. No surprise.He probably does bible study by reading the required passage only. Reading the babble cover to cover, which illuminates all those passages those making up the studies want one to ignore, makes one see just what an amoral capricious gang/war lord Yahweh is. And why he is unworthy of worship. Slavery, genocide, sexual slavery, capricious ever changing rules, misogyny (where is Mrs. Yahweh to slap some sense into this starfarting egoist) and just plain meanness are his stock in trade.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 19, 2010 2:08 PM
Bah.
'Tis and Feynmaniac already went there and did that.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 19, 2010 8:23 PM
Indeed. Which is why we have universities all around the world where people who have dedicated their lives to understand some obscure but important part of the world work to further that knowledge and impart it on a new generation. Not only that, but this knowledge has been placed into books that anyone can buy. Been made into television series and documentaries. Uploaded onto the internet for anyone to download. If you have iTunes, check out iTunesU. At the touch of a button (and a bit of bandwidth) you could download more knowledge about the world than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of existing.Posted by: Marek
|
June 20, 2010 7:31 PM
Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad Superhero
Here is something for you:
An Opportunity for Healing and Reconciliation
In 1492, when the European explorers started coming to the beautiful and pristine New World of the Americas in wave after wave, the universe was arranging a very special meeting of the hearts and minds of two
very different peoples. The Indigenous Peoples received the “White
Man” with open arms, open hearts and a reception fitting for a king.
The Europeans were not of the same spirit and had an agenda that
prevented them from understanding the true purpose of this divinely
ordained reunion.
What ensued was certainly one of the most unfortunate chapters in both North and South American histories. What could have been one of the greatest exchanges of culture, wisdom, and abundance in human
history, instead became an exercise in exploitation, stealing of lands
and genocide. The true history irrefutably shows, time and time again,
that the Native Americans were virtually always on the losing side of
this ongoing battle, while the Europeans were on the winning side in
the mundane sphere of life.
For many of us European descendants, this ongoing saga is even too painful to write about, so you can imagine how much we share your pain and suffering and anger. Like so many Indigenous Peoples across the
world, the legacy of oppression, racism and victimization inflicted by
the “White Man” is a stain that will be borne for eons. Because of
this, we come to you this day in the spirit of humility, remorse and
repentance.
Above all, we come to you to ask for your forgiveness for unspeakable offenses, committed over centuries, against your forefathers & foremothers, as well as your brothers and sisters to
this very day. We come to you in peace and love and good will with the
hope that we can be reconciled during these end times. Many of us now
possess a profound reverence and deep respect for all that you are, and
do, and offer to the other races of humankind.
Yours is a destiny that was clearly meant to teach us all about the sacredness of all life, the underlying unity of all peoples, and the divine manifestation in all earthly and heavenly beings. You
possessed, and practiced, a body of ancient and sacred wisdom that we
were meant to embrace centuries ago, but failed to understand or
appreciate. However, the time has now come for us to come together so
that we may receive this wisdom that is necessary to heal and save
Mother Earth.
As you all know, we have before us an earthly challenge of epic proportions. The ongoing Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico has presented humankind with an unprecedented opportunity for all of us to come
together in prayer and worship as the first and necessary step toward
healing our Mother Earth. As She bleeds her lifeblood into the Gulf,
and it begins to enter the Atlantic Ocean, the Seven Seas will then be
at risk. The future of humanity, therefore, now lies in the balance.
By showing us Her blood in the water, She is alerting us to the necessities before us. As the great caretakers of this land known to us as the Americas, we understand that it was your wise stewardship and
reverence for Mother Nature that ensured the blessed future destiny of
North America, and especially of Canada and the United States of
America. We fully recognize that our nations have enjoyed a fortunate
destiny of abundance and prosperity due to the multi-century
sacrifices, respectful practices and wise management of the Indigenous
Peoples. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
Now it is time for us to come together in the spirit of love and brotherhood and peace. We are all children of the same Mother Earth, as we are progeny of the same Father Spirit. About this there is no
doubt, so it is time for us to stand together in union as we approach
the Divine to seek the solutions and answers that will heal the
planet. Before we stand together, however, perhaps it is more
appropriate in keeping with your traditions that we first sit down to
“smoke the peace pipe together”.
We invite your Wisest Elders, Greatest Chiefs and Gifted Shamans to come to the Emerald Coast of North Florida, which caresses our beloved Gulf of Mexico, to conduct your most sacred fire and pipe ceremonies in
an effort to invoke the Great Spirits of your sacred traditions. We
know that the time has come for you to take your rightful place at the
table of humankind. We understand that yours is a place of leadership
within the community of nations and among the many traditions and
tribes around the world. By your extraordinary forbearance,
perseverance and patience you have earned this right many times over.
You are the rightful heirs to the mantle of planetary stewardship.
One from among you has wisely offered the sacred Summer Solstice as a potential day of prayer and ceremony. The 21st of June is very special to many traditions, particularly within the spiritual
traditions of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. In preparation,
your Chiefs and Elders have quite generously answered our invitation by
performing ceremonies and creating sacred spaces in global forums, as
well as by participating in upcoming events around the Summer Solstice.
Sunday the 20th has also become a global focal point that will draw
down powerful energies from the universe that are desperately needed at
this time. These unparalleled and sublime international celebrations
have been made possible by the magnanimity of your great Chiefs, and
for this we are deeply grateful.
Our Dear Brother and Sisters of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, and beyond:
Thank you for rising up to this glorious, yet solemn, occasion. A defining moment is before us. May we seize this day together, and make our Mother Earth proud. She has been waiting for us to transcend our
differences and collaborate as never before to heal Her, ourselves and
every living thing.
May we come together in the spirit of harmony, peace and good will, now and forever.
With deepest respect,
Your 'American' Brother Marek
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 20, 2010 7:36 PM
As She bleeds her lifeblood
oil is the earth's "lifeblood"?
roflmao, you're one sick, twisted moron.
no respect due.
holy fuck, what a clueless git.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 20, 2010 7:37 PM
To Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad Superhero,
http://www.shiftoftheages.com/wandering_wolfs_message
Posted by: Marek
|
June 20, 2010 7:52 PM
With deepest respect Ichthyic,
If they (BP) or others do not stop the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico we all will be crying for O2 you fishy fish.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 20, 2010 7:52 PM
Marek, still no evidence for your alleged, but absent, wisdom, your imaginary, or your babble being inerrant. Still the idjit loser with nothing cogent to say. Here's the thing fuckwit. Stop talking, and cite the scientific evidence. We are waiting....
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 20, 2010 7:59 PM
Geez, what a nightmarish, incoherent mess of woo-soaked drivel.
Okay, which one of you broke Marek's brain? Come on, 'fess up.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 20, 2010 9:02 PM
I do not remember accusing you of anything.
Anyway the bible is written for those who know how to read it as any peer reviewed scientific literature.
Since you read the bible cover to cover as 'my creationists do', according to the original scripture, the existence of visible world is calculated for approximately 2.190.000.000+ years.
Did you read it in your bible?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 20, 2010 9:18 PM
False accusation. No evidence shown. If it needs interpretation, it isn't the word of your imaginary deity. Who should be able to speak in plain language, being omni whatever. Seems rather to be a pile of egotistical megalomaniacs trying to keep the tribe together. What a loser you are if you don't see the reality of that.What bible? I have no mythical/fictional holy book claiming to be absolute knowledge, as there is no absolute knowledge. But you are off a little off with your numbers. Best present evidence for the age of the: Universe, Earth. All done without mythical/fictional holy books and your imaginary deity.Still waiting for your real evidence, compared to vague statements and irrational ramblings. Only a woomeister godbotting fool never presents real evidence, and that includes you for the moment. We are waiting...
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 20, 2010 9:18 PM
Marek wrote:
Incorrect, that is not how scientific literature works; and a circular argument - so, you're wrong. Twice.
That is not a number. But if you mean 2,190,000,000 years, then you're still wrong. And you're lying; there is no way that number can be extracted from the bible without adding non-biblical material, i.e. making shit up.
FAIL.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 20, 2010 10:44 PM
Yes I mean approximately 2,190,000,000 years. And I am not lying. Ask NoR, he read the bible from cover to cover.
Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Teleological argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
Watchmaker analogy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
Watchmaker observation: e is smaller then ΦC∞
http://www.visutech.net/peace365/index.asp?pageID=86
Unfortunately as already stated at #276, the blog's software does not allow me to quote from other sources, so much of missing important data.
Therefore in order to continue this argument you have to view it at Sequal Box, Sequal 1, http://www.visutech.net/peace365/index.asp?pageID=86
Otherwise, Ciao my creation scientists brothers.
Creation science
noun
the interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, esp. regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 21, 2010 2:04 PM
FYI Wowbagger, it probably indicates that Marek prefers to use the European decimal system, in which "," and "." are swapped in relation to the Anglo-US practice. Which makes nonsense of his claim to be 'American', then.
*changes to low whisper*
But then this guy isn't really making much sense at all. I think he's a couple of genocides short of a holy book, if you know what I mean.
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 21, 2010 2:32 PM
Or, to quote Brad Pitt's character, Mills, in the movie se7en:
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 21, 2010 3:22 PM
Marek #339
Personally, I'd rather people come together to do something that actually fixed the problem.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 21, 2010 3:28 PM
It's obvious English is not Marek's native tongue. Look at the opening of the screed in #275:
This was not written by someone who speaks and writes colloquial English.
Posted by: Marek
|
June 21, 2010 8:40 PM
It is obvious that Marek's native tongue is neither English or Americanish. It is streetwise.
Yes, I meant ± 2,190,000,000 years (#346 link to Universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe)
and I am not lying WowbaggerOM. Ask Nerd of Redhead. He has read the bible cover to cover, if not, read Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 .
I thought that we are here to elaborate or share some observations on 'The God Equation?'
However my yesterday's post is still waiting for approval. Anyone knows how long?
Lets continue about TGE? Shall we?
Gyeong Hwa Pak, Das unzufriedene Pikachu #334
Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Watchmaker analogy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
Watchmaker observation
Sequel 1
http://www.visutech.net/peace365/index.asp?pageID=86
But before you pick up the threads, instead of continuing on picking at petty mistakes I have made in my 'colloquial English', you have to promise to yourselves to study first Watchmaker observation first to continue, otherwise
Ciao! my fellow creationists.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 21, 2010 8:59 PM
No, it is looneytoonsian.Not that a book of mythology, which the babble is, means anything. You have presented absolutely zero evidence for the inerrancy of the babble. Whereas I said it was full of shit. Just like you and your assertions.Only if you can back it with real, not presumed, peer reviewed scientific evidence. Which we are waiting for. Your problem with calling the babble peer reviewed, is that you must name the deities (after all mere mortals are not the peers of a deity) that did the peer review. They, like Yahweh, did a piss poor job of not making him sound like a lunatic with delusions of adequacy.Since you are incoherent, and didn't cite the peer reviewed scientific literature, your citations are nothing but junk. Just like your alleged analysis. We are still waiting for your evidence that a deity exists. Until then, you are nothing but an illiterate fool. Aufwedersehn.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 21, 2010 9:20 PM
Marek wrote:
Perhaps you should a) read the article you linked to, and b) learn what '±' means before you misuse it. That number does not appear in any form, and the ± refers to the uncertainty, i.e. it could be that much more or less than the cited figure.
It says the universe is 13.73±0.17 billion years old. That is a lot more than the number you provided.
Marek wrote:
No, you are lying. That figure is not contained in the bible; you are taking a written expression - 'thousands of years' - and assuming it can be used to calculate a number, without showing your working.
No formula = no cigar.
If a watch needs a watchmaker, then - logically - a watchmaker needs a watchmaker-maker. Whence came the watchmaker-maker? Where is the watchmaker-maker now?
Posted by: Usagichan
|
June 21, 2010 9:27 PM
Wowbagger,
Marek's maths is (unsurprisingly simple) - if a day is 100 years for Dog, then take the number of days in the babble (6000 * 365 for the sake of argument) and multiply by 1000 (as per the quotes he misinterprets - they actually say that 1000 years are like a single day for Dog, making the Universe 6 days old...)
Fails all round for Marek there...
Posted by: Usagichan
|
June 21, 2010 9:31 PM
Mistype there - should have read "if a day is 1000 years..." etc. Not that one fallacious figure is substantially different from another, but I wouldn't want to misquote the book of delusions now, would I!
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 21, 2010 9:42 PM
Psalms 90:4 and 2nd Peter 3:8 are nothing but a repeat of the same thousand years is one day bullshit.
A better use of your time Marek/Moron would be to contemplate Proverbs 21:23.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 21, 2010 9:54 PM
Usagichan, I gathered that's what he was aiming for, but I needed him to explain it. Either way, though, the figure of 6,000 is extra-biblical - which is the point I was making in #347.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 21, 2010 10:09 PM
I think #345 should go into the Pharyngula quote file as one of the finest examples of pure bullshit we've seen.
Peer reviewed literature for those who know how to read it my ass. *snort*
Posted by: Usagichan
|
June 21, 2010 10:11 PM
Wowbagger,
Sorry to have jumped in prematurely there then.
The whole topic seems so bizarre that piecing together a fractured fallacy gave a weird sense of achievement - Leading to my twitchy posting trigger finger. I'll just try to go with the (surreal) flow now...
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 21, 2010 10:21 PM
Usagichan wrote:
That's okay. Marek may not come back so it's probably better that his 'method' (using the term loosely) was explained for anyone who wasn't aware of it.
And even if he did, there's still the problem of it never being explained why we don't use 'God's time' to measure anything else; why the figure is it still off by 12 billion years, well outside the error range; and finally why, if that calculation is canonical, the vast majority of Christians (i.e. all the non YECs) accepts the figure provided by reality, obtained via science.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 21, 2010 10:36 PM
I got your equation right here:
Uh-huh, yup, yup.
Now, don't you feel blessed?
Posted by: MrFire
|
June 22, 2010 9:22 AM
Please, Marek. Cut the crap.
Stop jumping tracks all the time with your flippant, glassy-eyed non-sequiturs.
You're shuffling, obscuring, and avoiding any real discussion, and I suspect you damn well fucking know it.
Just write a single, coherent, relevant sentence without all the fluff and bullshit.
That's all I ask.
Posted by: stranger
|
November 15, 2010 1:50 PM
a=o/p
with a= Fine structure constant - 1.37
with o= (Terminal Omega Number= 27 (light) x 37 (energy)) = 999
with p= Phi-618 with Trinity Function applied-(6)cubed+(1)cubed+(8)cubed= 729
Posted by: jackhooper2009
|
May 24, 2011 4:34 AM
Every year with the advancements of science we discover new formulas and other theories but every time the unknown is bigger than known.
Watch Priest Free Online