beecee

Agreed on both counts.

Perhaps this is more about not "being able to please all of the people all of the time"? And of course that old adage of it being a thankless job is certainly true. Do we need Mods? Yes. Are Mods going to make decisions that you are going to agree with 100% of the time? No I participate here because it is a science forum, and as such I would hope that the scientific methodology reigns supreme, particularly when ego driven people continually claim they have "bettered" some incumbent theory or model. More then likely they have not. Afterall if anyone really believes they have "bettered" GR for example, why would they announce it on some remote science forum. They would be taking it out to the world and preparing themselves for Stockholm in November and the Nobel prize! In essence science forums being open to any Tom. Dick or Harry, should only be considered as vehicles for asking science based questions, and giving mainstream explanations and reasons by those that know. Also of course many science forums such as this, also have sub forums such as Speculation, Politics etc, noting of course that the governing premise is the scientific method and whatever critical review of said views is needed. There are forums far more stringent then this forum, and also some far more lax. I can certainly direct people to one in particular that has far more discussions on ghosts, Goblins, Alien origin UFO's and conspiracy nonsense such as faked Moon landings and 9/11 alternative crap. Mods are human and sometimes make decisions that all of us are not going to agree with. I certainly did not agree with my forced 3 day holiday and believed it was wrong obviously. But I also recognise my shortcomings in that I will not tolerate bullies and will always give as good as I get, and see the necessity to refute vigorously those that love to attempt to denigrate some aspect of science, wrongfully and without reasonable cause. In doing that I recognise that on occasions I may go beyond reasonable criticism. I am trying to eliminate that undesirable feature of my otherwise incredible persona. As humans, we all I believe have agendas of some sort...some have religious agendas [closeted and un-closeted] and will inevitably love getting on their white charger and conducting crusades against the evil Atheist and the science he pushes...Others simply have over-inflated egos and believe they are capable of usurping current scientific theories, with tiresome 100% certainty and are incapable of accepting any criticism...My agenda is simply science and the scientific method and despite my "forced holiday" believe that in general, this rightly also appears to be the agenda of the Mods and Admins on this forum. And that's why you still have me!!!

The Cuban Missile crisis was at the height of the cold war. I'm just happy that at least one side did back down before anything beyond the general penis waving started. Did the USA have the right to prevent ICBM capable of carrying nuclear bombs on their door step? Was the USSR acting provocatively in attempting to arm Cuba? Were the USA in their rights commencing the naval blockade? Does the current nations with nuclear weapons have the right to prevent other nations from developing them? Is it immoral to keep on developing nuclear weapons? Should a nation's general "anti Western" stance, or pro Muslim stance be considered when nuclear weapon availability is spoken about? Should we consider the general apparent "despot/dictatorial" attitude of any nations leaders, when such confrontations are on the plate? Should Trump going on his actions/talk so far be considered a despot/dictator? I just hope things all pan out peacefully for my continued retirement and the benefit of my kids and their kids etc.

Space and time [as we know them] evolved from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds.That's what the current expansion and the relic heat at 2.7K tells us. Perhaps nothing is quantum foam, and that is the earliest state of nothing that can exist. Again, speaking of anything before the BB, is effectively outside of our universe and as such we cannot just willy nilly assign properties to it, including space and time. As Hawking said, it is like asking, what is North of the North Pole. All we can do is speculate. Perhaps gravitational radiation and the new Physics it presents maybe able to reveal something. Another rather interesting fact that may help is the following... https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html Q; Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? A: No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation

Just in case anyone misconstrues that, what it was "that cost me dearly" it had nothing to do with this forum. It happened while I was a Union Delegate and after a 5 week strike in the early seventies, that achieved 4 weeks annual leave, and a 35 hr week, along with a $15/weekly increase.

Here, get this into you...https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Perhaps as I have mentioned before, the quantum foam from whence the BB arose [as per my previous link] is as close to nothing as is possible...perhaps that is our best definition of nothing, followed by the "reasonable" speculative scenario of the BB evolving from it. As I said before, nothing wrong in speculation, as long as one accepts it is only at this time speculative. I mean much of science started as speculation.

I have a question... We do not know why the BB banged or how, but something Often occurs to me...The DE mystery property of spacetime that is responsible for the acceleration in the expansion, is there any legit scientific reason to exclude that from having being the same impetus behind the BB? Let me reword that.....Could the impetus behind the evolution of spacetime we label the BB, be the same mystery impetus behind what is accelerating the expansion and what we have labeled DE? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy "Alan Guth and Alexei Starobinsky proposed in 1980 that a negative pressure field, similar in concept to dark energy, could drive cosmic inflation in the very early universe. Inflation postulates that some repulsive force, qualitatively similar to dark energy, resulted in an enormous and exponential expansion of the universe slightly after the Big Bang. Such expansion is an essential feature of most current models of the Big Bang. However, inflation must have occurred at a much higher energy density than the dark energy we observe today and is thought to have completely ended when the universe was just a fraction of a second old. It is unclear what relation, if any, exists between dark energy and inflation. Even after inflationary models became accepted, the cosmological constant was thought to be irrelevant to the current universe." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is sort of what I was envisaging....sort of.....

Actually your attitude to your speculative scenarios and the ensuring criticism have been like a breath of fresh air, in that it seems you are recognising some of the short comings in your many hypotheticals, and accept them as speculative, rather then blasting your way onto the forum, demanding with utmost certainty that you have invalidated many decades of cosmology as so many do. While apparently still stubbornly holding onto the basis of your idea, you also do appear to be listening and learning particularly from the many good points put in the last few hours. While many aspects of cosmology appears counter-intuitive on face value, the foundation fact is that the universe is not obliged to align with what we see or don't see as intuitive or otherwise.

While you make many good points, any war against injustices and abuse of human rights should always be the last resort. On your second statement, while probably true, there are I believe degrees of bullying, from intolerable, to bearable though less then desirable. All political systems in my opinion have good and bad points. Personally I base my opinions solely on what I believe to be morally wrong or unacceptable, irrespective of accepted political dogma of the time, which in my case has on at least one occasion cost me dearly.

There is no center of the universe, as the BB occurred in all of spacetime, as all of spacetime was confined to the size of an atomic nucleus. The BB occurred in all of spacetime and is still happening. The only center to speak of is the center of one's observable universe, a personal center if you will, which any intelligent being in any part of the universe would also deduce. This sounds like the Big Rip scenario and is one possible scenario....After the decay of BH's, it has been speculated that perhaps even proton decay may take place...again speculative though, and so far the only evidence is that expansion is taking place and accelerating over large scales, and gravity still rules over smaller scales such as groups, clusters and walls, at this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

As I previously mentioned, Hawking Radiation has yet to be validated, but there is no reason why it cannot be so. It is very likely. You also make some doubtful assumptions such as "So the virtual/real particle must accelerate away from the event horizon and the singularity." When virtual particles pop into existence just this side of the EH, both may fall in, both may escape, or one may fall in and the other escape. If the third scenario eventuates then the virtual particles become real, the one escaping is seen as X-Ray's and the one falling in, becomes negative and subtracts from the BH's overall mass. The universe only expands over large scales...local groups of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and galactic walls are decoupled from the expansion by gravity. OK, we are now getting complicated. The law of conservation of energy is probably more correctly applied as the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant....but of course as per E=Mc2, it can be changed from one form to another. The evidence that space is created at the BB, or evolved at the BB, is I would imagine the observational data of the expansion and mentally reversing that. I also believe that the universal maximum speed limit only applies to mass/energy....not spacetime. In my opinion, the biggest thing going for the BB is how it fits beautifully with GR. Finally and with all due respect, you mention "as opposed to your scenario". You and I do not have access to Hubble, the Planck Satellite, Chandra, Compton, WMAP, etc. While there are many aspects of the BB cosmologists are ignorant of, such as how, the why, the questions on the nature of nothing and before, the ideas that you have put forward, and others, have in all liklelyhood been thought about, researched and pidgeon holed before. String theory and its many derivatives are aesthetically and mathematically beautiful they often say, we simply do not have the technological know how to observe at such scales.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20190214 LIGO Receives New Funding to Search for More Extreme Cosmic Events News Release • February 14, 2019 Grants from the U.S., United Kingdom, and Australia will fund next-generation improvements to LIGO The National Science Foundation (NSF) is awarding Caltech and MIT $20.4 million to upgrade the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), an NSF-funded project that made history in 2015 after making the first direct detection of ripples in space and time, called gravitational waves. The investment is part of a joint international effort in collaboration with UK Research and Innovation and the Australian Research Council, which are contributing additional funds. While LIGO is scheduled to turn back on this spring, in its third run of the "Advanced LIGO" phase, the new funding will go toward "Advanced LIGO Plus." Advanced LIGO Plus is expected to commence operations in 2024 and to increase the volume of deep space the observatory can survey by as much as seven times. "I'm extremely excited about the future prospects that the Advanced LIGO Plus upgrade affords gravitational-wave astrophysics," said Caltech's David Reitze, executive director of LIGO. "With it we expect to detect gravitational waves from black hole mergers on a daily basis, greatly increasing our understanding of this dark sector of the universe. Gravitational-wave observations of neutron star collisions, now very rare, will become much more frequent, allowing us to more deeply probe the structure of their exotic interiors." Since LIGO's first detection of gravitational waves from the violent collision of two black holes, it has observed nine additional black hole mergers and one collision of two dense, dead stars called neutron stars. The neutron star merger gave off not just gravitational waves but light waves, detected by dozens of telescopes in space and on the ground. The observations confirmed that heavy elements in our universe, such as platinum and gold, are created in neutron star smashups like this one. "This award ensures that NSF's LIGO, which made the first historic detection of gravitational waves in 2015, will continue to lead in gravitational-wave science for the next decade," said Anne Kinney, assistant director for NSF's Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate, in a statement. "With improvements to the detectors—which include techniques from quantum mechanics that refine laser light and new mirror coating technology—the twin LIGO observatories will significantly increase the number and strength of their detections. Advanced LIGO Plus will reveal gravity at its strongest and matter at its densest in some of the most extreme environments in the cosmos. These detections may reveal secrets from inside supernovae and teach us about extreme physics from the first seconds after the universe's birth." Michael Zucker, the Advanced LIGO Plus leader and co-principal investigator, and a scientist at the LIGO Laboratory, operated by Caltech and MIT, said, "I'm thrilled that NSF, UK Research, and Innovation and the Australian Research Council are joining forces to make this key investment possible. Advanced LIGO has altered the course of astrophysics with 11 confirmed gravitational-wave events over the last three years. Advanced LIGO Plus can expand LIGO's horizons enough to capture this many events each week, and it will enable powerful new probes of extreme nuclear matter as well as Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity." LIGO is funded by NSF and operated by Caltech and MIT, which conceived of LIGO and led the Initial and Advanced LIGO projects. Financial support for the Advanced LIGO project was led by the NSF, with Germany (Max Planck Society), the U.K. (Science and Technology Facilities Council), and Australia (Australian Research Council-OzGrav) making significant commitments and contributions to the project. More than 1,200 scientists from around the world participate in the effort through the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, which includes the GEO Collaboration. A list of additional partners is available at https://my.ligo.org/census.php. LIGO partners with the European Virgo gravitational-wave detector and its collaboration, consisting of more than 300 physicists and engineers belonging to 28 different European research groups. GW+EM Observatories Map A map of the approximately 70 light-based observatories that detected the gravitational-wave event called GW170817. On August 17, the LIGO and Virgo detectors spotted gravitational waves from two colliding neutron stars. Light-based telescopes around the globe observed the aftermath of the collision in the hours, days, and weeks following. They helped pinpoint the location of the neutron stars and identified signs of heavy elements, such as gold, in the collision's ejected material.

I have read many books...including one by Eric J Lerner, entitled "The Big Bang Never Happened" and another about the "Bermuda Triangle" by Charles Berlitz. Both books and the reasons and thoughts behind them, have been entirely dismissed and shown to be fabricated nonsense in most cases. If you gave me your book though, I would actually burn it, as the evidence for an oblate spherical Earth is beyond question in this day and age of man made Satellites and 8 trips to the Moon. Anyone who puts any credence in any claim of the Earth being flat, should be avoided at all costs, as a charlatan and fool.

The DE property of spacetime is observed in the continued acceleration. The DE [whatever it really is] is the driving force behind the continued acceleration. The BB was the evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] as we know them from t+10-43 seconds. There is no "outside" to consider. The expanding universe is all there is and all our current models entail. No, from an outside frame of reference, anything approaching the EH, is certainly slowed down as it approaches and as I said, is redshifted beyond our ability to see it, so simply fades from view. Of course from the local frame of whatever it is approaching the EH, nothing extraordinary happens, [ignoring tidal gravitational effects] and it falls across the EH and oblivion. Nothing technical about it, nothing physically crosses the EH once inside and the only possible paths are those towards the singularity. Hawking Radiation is simply a quantum effect, and although mostly likely, has not as yet been actually validated. It also is simply re-enforcing the conservation law. All we can say again, is that the BB was the evolution of space and time [as we know them] from t+10-43 seconds and the spacetime as we know them, is our whole universe. There is no outside and there is no boundary. While we hear plenty about what existed before the BB, what the BB arose from, parallel universes and such, it is still all just speculative scenarios and we have no evidence supporting such concepts. Also spacetime is not nothing. It is the arena within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. GR describes gravity in terms of curvature of spacetime. Any real nothing that exists maybe the quantum foam, or spacetime in some unknown form that at this time we have no information on. It's worth noting here, and as Strange has mentioned, that most cosmologists today, do not believe any Singularity of infinite density and spacetime curvature would exist. The only defined singularity is that applied to regions where GR fails us, which is at the quantum/Planck level. This then seems to imply a surface of sorts at or just below that level, consisting of the mass in an unknown form. BH's are not all purpose vacuum cleaners, and will only sweep out an area probably out to around a three Schwarzchild radius, the inner regions of most accretion disks. 1.5 Schwarzchild radius is where something that is travelling at "c" would be able to orbit and is known as the Photon sphere. Some BH's are relatively dormant, like our own SMBH in Sgr A . Others are far more violent such as 3C 273.

Not sure how that is relevant. Whatever injustices are being perpetrated on the North Korean people, is not spilling beyond its borders. And while that is undesirable, we have other means and diplomacy to consider before any thought of war. Obviously, any first step for change in North Korea need be by the people themselves I also found this...... http://time.com/5310834/solution-north-korea-people-defectors/ "These changes are irreversible and are being driven by the North Korean people at a grassroots level, creating pressure from the bottom up. The North Korean government has shown itself to be sensitive to these internal pressures and has demonstrated that it can react in both resistant or adaptive ways, but increased pressure from the bottom up will continue to force the government to find ways to respond, adapt or face the potential of more forceful change." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's hope that change for the better does occur over time.

Wow! where to start. Firstly the DE that is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion rate, is a property of spacetime, and acts as it does because it remains a constant so that as our cosmos grows bigger it continues to expand faster. We have no reason to believe or hypothesise that DE has anything to do with mass/matter. Our knowledge of BH's is rather scarce, although our best assumptions should align with Einstein's GR. From any outside perspective, nothing is seen to actually cross the EH of any BH, rather as it is time dilated towards infinity, and the light continually redshifted as the EH is approached, we would see any image approaching the EH as continually redshifted until beyond the capabilities of any viewing apparatus that we had and just fade from view. Also the process known as Hawking Radiation that you discuss does not involve any particle crossing the EH from inside to outside. It involves virtual particles where one positive escapes before annihilation takes place and one negative gets sucked in, and in doing so, to maintain the law of conservation, subtracts from the overall mass of the BH. Matter that does get sucked in, as you say, is spaghettified and gradually ripped apart into its most basic fundamental parts as it approaches the singularity at the core. In other words the effects of tidal gravitation, overcomes all the other forces including the strong nuclear force. That's about all we can reasonably assume based on current laws of physics and GR. Anyhthing else, like BH's leading to baby universes and the like, is pure unsupported speculation at this time. Note: Nothing physically crosses the EH from inside to outside...nothing.

No, I havn't studied numerology either, but plain old common sense tells me that using coincidental arrangement of numbers, or any of a thousand other interpretations that some put on sequels of numbers, particularly the nonsense spouted in the bible, is certainly unscientific and ignores the scientific methodology, something I am vaguely familiar with even though I aint a scientist. My first opinion obviously is 100% correct, due to my general gift of insight, on issues such as this. It is totally superstition, it is worse then pseudoscience and is most certainly nonsense. I do agree with you though that it is NOT MAGIC....as magic like the supernatural, and paranormal are figments of people's imagination and do not really exist.

The main premise so far to come out of the subject matter of the OP, is that all wars are immoral by nature, but sometimes as in WW2 when bullies such as Hitler rise to power, and after negotiation, appeasements etc all fail, then it is also immoral not to help your fellow man and stop the bully, not withstanding other mentioned contrary to history superficial conspiracy like accounts of what happened.

Another reply from...https://www.quora.com/Why-is-numerology-considered-a-pseudoscience "The proponents of pseudo-sciences use the terminology of Science. They try to copy and emulate real science. That’s how they make naive people get convinced that it is indeed a science. Actually, these naive people are not really dumb. They are pretty ‘smart’ people who have consciously chosen to act dumb when it comes to certain aspects of life. These ‘smart’ people have gone to top schools, attended top colleges, got big degrees and now work for international companies. And yet, they believe in and follow pseudo-sciences to give them the much needed legitimacy. If someone thought of preparing a list of 'busiest persons' one cannot leave out the name of Pandit Ashokbharrati. His telephone numbers must be among the most accessed numbers in the country. It is said that several lakhs attempt to get in touch with him over phone every day. While talking to a Nobel Laureate or the President of France, one does not say he is very busy or that he gets one lakh phones per day. Why? Because everyone knows they are important people, hence there is no need to actually say it. However, to prove that a numerologist is in serious business one has to go extra length to convince people. If you are trying to sell fake stuff, you really to work extra hard to prove it is genuine." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" I prefer the first quora reply....That is "I'd suggest numerology isn't pseudoscience, it's just nonsense. " https://www.quora.com/Why-is-numerology-considered-a-pseudoscience "A pseudoscience is a fake science that makes claims based on faulty or nonexistent scientific evidence. In most cases, these pseudosciences present claims in a way that makes them seem possible, but with little or no empirical support for these claims. Graphology, numerology, and astrology, are all examples of pseudosciences. In many cases, these pseudosciences rely on anecdotes and testimonials to back up their often outlandish claims."

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-numerology-considered-a-pseudoscience Q; Why is numerology considered a pseudoscience? A: Numerology obviously has many of the various problems that Pseudosciencedoes: Contradictory claims: different numerological systems will give different results based on the same initial data. Numerology also assumes a base of ten, while using, for example, a binary or hexidecimal system would obviously give a contradictory result. As base ten is arbitrary and probably related to the number of digits humans have, there's no reason to use base ten if numerology had any significance in the physical world. The calendar we use also arbitrary, so different cultures / calendars would have different numbers for each year, and so different, contradictory results. Exaggerated claims: how exactly will your name determine your ideal love match? How could your birth-date determine your job? How can the numbers in a date determine world events on that date? Unprovable claims: numerological readings tend to be akin to cold-reading claims, filled with Barnum statements. How can we say whether they are right or wrong when they are so vague? Absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories (see also above first bullet): How does numerology work? Why base ten? Why the Gregorian Calendar? I'm unaware of any attempts by numerologists to account for any of this. However: Over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation: as far as I'm aware there have been extremely few serious attempts to confirm or deny. Two studies produced negative results (source: Numerology) but it is hardly studied properly at all. although numerological approaches relate to some fields (e.g. astrology) that fringe journals do publish, numerology itself is barely mentioned even in many journals chock full of pseudoscience. Lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field: again, numerology is so obviously useless and fictional that almost no-one not in the field studies it, so this isn't really an issue. But the real issue is that pseudoscience is: A claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method Obviously numerology doesn't adhere to the scientific method. But does it even attempt to? Is it really presented as scientific? Even other pseudosciences seems to shun numerology. That's a pretty low bar. I'd suggest numerology isn't pseudoscience, it's just nonsense.

https://exemplore.com/fortune-divination/Numerology-is-Nonsense Why Name Numerology Is Nonsense: Sum Your Name to 666! PS: I did though thoroughly enjoy the movie "Omen" Gregory Peck has always been one of my favourite actors.

On a lighter note my favourite Christian Numerology is 666 https://exemplore.com/fortune-divination/Numerology-is-Nonsense Why Name Numerology Is Nonsense: Sum Your Name to 666! "In numerology it is claimed that numbers can tell you more about yourself, your life and even your future. Simply by looking at your name and doing some number analysis a numerologist can tell you more about your path in life. In some forms of name numerology they assign values to characters of the alphabet. These numbers can then be used in calculcations. For example, they can assign 'a' = 1, 'b' = 2, 'c' = 3, et cetera and that turns each name into a few numbers. The name 'john' would be 'j' = 10, 'o' = 15, 'h' = 8, and 'n' = 14. What can we say about these numbers? Let's add them together as a first step. Together these numbers sum to 10 + 15 + 8 + 14 = 47. Is 47 a special number? Perhaps, that all depends on how you interpret and explain it. Many numerologists have shown that names of famous people can sum to 666, a well-known number due to its presence in the Bible and it's also known as the Number of the Beast. You can imagine that if your name sums up to such number then that probably means no good" PS: I did though thoroughly enjoy the movie "Omen" Gregory Peck has always been one of my favourite actors.

A prime example of the nonsense that Christian Numerology promotes is amply illustrated in the prediction/s of the end of days and other such elements of fear. https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2018/april/apparently-end-of-world-is-set-to-happen-again.html It's Time to End the Stupid about the End Times: Debunking Christian Numerology: Self-proclaimed Christian numerologist David Meade is at it again. This time, though, he’s saying that the world is going to end on April 23rd. It’s on the front page of the USAToday and the Drudge Report right now. Worse yet, he’s now brought international policy issues into the discussion (another subject area for which he has no academic credentials, like his “Christian numerology”). He’s now predictingthat a nuclear conflict will also occur this month. But before you panic and make an emergency trip to the grocery store or run to break out that apocalyptic survival gear, know that this isn’t Meade’s first rodeo. He’s predicted that the world would end not once, but twice already this year. Again, before getting into a tizzy and starting to think that maybe this could finally be the real deal, I want you to notice something: we’re all still here. Again, perhaps you need to refer to the OP, and perhaps stay on track and the discussion/refutation of the nonsense that Christian Numerology often portrays.

Individuals will see patterns in many things...clouds come to mind, the constellations are another. Mostly it is driven by agenda and what the mind wants to see to support that agenda. Other times it is simply coincidental, and sometimes just plain old delusional. Christian numerology, like the bible, and other supernatural/paranormal scenarios are unscientific and irrational. If you check the OP, the reference is to christianity and the bible. Again, unscientific at best and this is afterall a science forum, even though we are in the religious subset, all claims, need to "run the gauntlet" so to speak, and are governed by science and the scientific methodology.

I'm saying that numerology, like astrology is nothing more then myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology "Numerology is any belief in the divine or mysticalrelationship between a number and one or more coinciding events.[2] It is also the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names, and ideas. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course any supernatural, and/or paranormal scenarios is unsupported and unscientific.