Pymander

I wrote with this does not answer my question (again, all the way back to post #4) about how your idea can lead to results such as those reported by Briedenbach 1969. Nor any of the work that has come after it. I figured we'd start from day 1, which is that you need to demonstrate using your idea that when you bombard a proton with electrons, you get scattering that acts like there are 3 point-like bodies inside the proton. I define as fundamental particles all such as appear to last indefinitely in free space unless interacted with by some other agent besides time, and include neutrinos with energy ranges the same as photons have. Quarks, whatever they are, may be relevant to this theory. Can we explain the separation of charge and mass from electric fields? Can we explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass? Do we know the ultimate fate of photons and neutrinos? Is the universe going to become one big 'black hole' and Bang again when it is big enough, for some unknown reason? How does a Bang create a homogeneous universe where the speed of light is almost reached so far as it is visible? If quarks become an explanation for such things, great! What use is a model that explains none of these things? Because that is what I am attempting. The number of ways in which it is contestable is large. Many astronomical phenomena yield to this theory for explanations. The crux of them all rest on symmetric (matter & energy)/(dark matter & dark energy) as defined. A simple test is to disprove antigravitational effects on antimatter. What do these have to do with my theory, if they cannot be used as cited above? Again, I wouldn't mind seeing the exact quote you are flailing me with, I can't find it per se. What I did say, you have quoted. More accurately I have said that it may lead to something, like explanations for larger questions. My model doesn't deserve "hasn't demonstrated any predictions at all". It does produce explanations for larger questions, but in competition with alternative explanations that don't need quarks. Unless these theories are the same with different guises, they should be capable of being distinguished by their predictions, which will be easier with mine, since imaginary entities are not being used for real ones. I guess it won't help if I said I really thought you had software standing in for you, because your answers seemed so pat and repetitive. You may be comforted to know that it is nice to meet you after all this time, in full colour. My usual associates are quite colourful too. And so are the quarks by all accounts.

...and I have done so from many angles. But your answers sound like they are coming from Eliza's nerdy brother that's a long way from passing the Turing test. A certain amount of creativity is required to comprehend the answers, which I am quite put out to supply in a comprehensible form. I need to straddle contemporary prejudices, and these are required to be addressed for answers to make sense. Now you sound human. The concept of a gravitational dipole has been with me since before Probabilistic Ratings. Likewise, the key was hard to find for completion of ASST, but the identity of the neutrino as a necessary antiparticle to the photon was the breakthrough, which has since accumulated nothing but positive reinforcement from astronomical information. My Windows 7 desktop is every "Picture of the Day" since it began, 10 seconds each. Is that how it should be? Do I have access to such instruments? That stuff comes AFTER hypotheses are formulated from evidence, which seems to be forgotten. And on this point, which I believe is incorrect, I would appreciate specific questions, not general remarks which I have no way of addressing. Unless you are clear about what you have not understood, I can neither correct you nor myself, as the case may be. If this is a flaw in your software (for when the human side is busy), please consult your programmer.

Long story short, the initial hypothisis of the Big Bang Theory has probability 1 - p where p is the probability that inertial mass and gravitational mass are directly proportional, as this is the basis of General Relativity (via the equivalence principle) which contradicts it. It is a pretty one sided affair if you are not also abliged to answer questions to claims made. Stick that in your Bayesian analysis.

If I didn't like my idea better, would I be here waffling with you? Would anyone, even a respected and decorated scientist? Are you applying the same standard here? Did Hubble qualify his extremely prima face explanation of universal expansion? "I WANT TO KNOW WHY BigBangium WAS NOT A GIANORMOUS 'BLACK HOLE'!!!" And that is okay??? By my logic contradictions should not coexist in science. <A very strong and loud expression for 'incorrect' (with and exasperated expression on my face)>!!! And the ad hoc solution was that something with no other evidence for its existence was out there with only the exact properties required to fit our measurements. Like I said, this was taken out of Einstein's waste paper basket of methods, and embellished. You have maps of the EFFECTS for which you have no explanation worth squat! Antigravitational matter and energy would have the same effect more respectably. There is no contradiction, and yet no proof or disproof of the necessary property proposed. Galactic clusters are not just held together by gravitational attraction, but by gravitational repulsion from neighbouring clusters as well, being in the majority antigalactic clusters. This effect is so strong, that galactic collisions within a cluster are quite common, that larger galaxies so formed begin to eat all the rest, and eventually, leave a Fossil Cluster, or which the closest, at 180 million light years, is NGC6482. The best explanation for its attendant phenomena (x-ray halo and (according to present science OR 'A Steady State Theory' (ASST) but differently explained) dark matter surrounding it) is ASST. This has five times the concentration of matter in any other galaxy/antigalaxy. I began ASST with exactly that. You know, waffling garbage that sounds scientific is called 'pseudoscience' here, and I think the shoe is on the wrong foot. Which is why the last ad hoc hypotheses to prove correct, up to formulating and solving simultaneously: X^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2.t^2 X'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2 = c^2.t'^2 was the Lorentz transform. The jury is still out on various explanations for our universe which you incorrectly say are ONE, and nothing has been settled since Einstein that is not controversial, concerning the entities in question. If the 'black hole' is so well understood, show me how well you know your stuff, and explain BigBangium for me, the biggest 'black hole' of all time, PLEASE!

I am saying that the probabilities are these. 1. To cover the anomalies resulting from the Big Bang Theory, dark matter has been postulated. This is, in effect, postulating that an entity exists in the universe which will have the properties required to nullify the apparent anomaly. 2. I am saying that entities which already exist, and whose properties are not known, have certian properties required for A Steady State Theory to be possible, and properties which actually produce a more uniform set of laws than has been suspected. Specifically, matter is the only monopole according to present physics. Also, the neutrino fulfils a very limited role compared to other entities, and is continually requiring ad hoc maintenance. These are the considerations upon which I base these probabilities. Finally, Einstein only once employed such an ad hoc hypothesis, a cosmological constant, and called it his greatest blunder. Though that blunder has since been perpetuated concerning another such hypothesis, dark energy, Einstein would be the wiser on the matter of ad hoc hypotheses. He was, in hindsight, severely hamstrung by the fact that the negatron (antiproton) was not discovered until the year of his death, and I would be inclined to say that he would have turned to this revelation (implying antimatter in equal proportion) for his answer, rather than compounding ad hoc hypotheses already made with one more which seems extremely unlikely - assymetric matter and antimatter. Thank you for your interest. I know now how speculation is treated in this forum, but the truth is that science advances in no other way. Inertia is not just a physics phenomenon; it causes ad hoc solutions to take precedence. And perhaps it is necessary, or we would become bewildered by constant change, rather than exhausting a fruitful possibility. The event horizon is a point. Its seconds are infinite and its meters are zero. Its existence relies on surrounding mass which reaches that density at that point. Gravity creates it. The point contains nothing. Matter is being forced into that nothing. I believe that nothing will remain when it stops being fed. The "Black Hole" full of matter does not exist. The core of a spiral galaxy continually converts light matter and light energy into dark energy, which is repelled away from the event horizon, and passes through the entire galaxy without interaction with light matter comprising that galaxy. The mass of the "Black Hole" is the matter surrounding it that has extreme density, and it is this which produces gravitational lensing. Gravity effects time and space, and space is thus dependent on matter (and antimatter = dark matter). Materialisation of light and dark energy creates light and dark matter which will fill the voids created by expansion. Matter and energy recycle perfectly through this mechanism. The situation is completely symmetric, and light or dark are simply relative terms.

Dark matter was postulated to explain anomalies in the microwave background predicted by the Big Bang hypothesis. It was also applied to anomalies in the gravitational lensing of galactic clusters. If photons and neutrinos are materialising matter and antimatter in intergalactic space, and no Big Bang happened either, these predictions will be way out, which they are. Also, if we are observing a universe where clusters are somewhat alternating like sodium and chloride ions in a crystal of salt, our neighbours will be antigalactic clusters, while we are matter. Their photon emissions, not their neutrino emissions, will be visible to us, if these are also produced in pairs as a rule. They will not appear different (except for active cores), but light passing around them will be deflected away from these clusters. Finally, the problem of an accelerating expansion of the universe emerged, and the Big Bang hypothesis did not account for this. Therefore dark energy was invented to provide a cause for this effect. But the salt crystal is not drawn together by opposite charges. It is forced apart by opposite masses, where like attracts like, and unlike repels unlike. The alternate hypotheses of 'A Steady State Theory' plainly explain the same effects very well. That this can be done by slight changes in the perceived laws governing known subatomic entities, rather than invent non-existent entities prepacked with appropriate laws, is something of an achievement, if I say so myself. Also, the laws which I have reviewed are by no means set in stone for the real entities concerned. And there are a truckload of alternate explanations that still vie even with the dark matter and dark energy postulates, and all are quite ad hoc. My alternative is relatively simple by comparison, and seems to me far more probable. It is, for that matter, more contestable as well. Yet you are viewing effects of dark matter in another galactic cluster than our own with a telescope, and stating that it does not behave the same as what we see in a bubble chamber with a microscope? I don't think that's a valid argument at all. My explanation for the evidenced anomalies to prior-to-dark-entity-astrophysics should be at the top of the list of probable explanations. By the way, I'm only a program. Am I passing the test? You stated that photons only interact with charged particles. All matter is composed of charged particles. Any subatomic particle free in space will disintegrate into protons, electrons, and binding energy (which I claimed to include neutrinos). What goes on in a nucleus, where positrons or electrons are emitted, has been offered a new player, the neutrino. This is claimed to be the dark energy that does not affect matter. The mechanisms of radioactive decay may need to incorporate this. Given the proposed postulates, the presence of a "black hole" at the centre of the galaxy will supply a constant stream of neutrinos, most of which will pass through all matter and continue into space. Some will materialize. The claim is that photons and neutrinos may combine to cause materialization. As such it may be the randomizing agent responsible for radioactive decay, if virtual photons appear and disappear within the nucleus of unstable atoms. We cannot explain why certain isotopes are radioactive, particularly such as Technetium and Promethium, which have stable neighbors in the Periodic Table. The many unstable subatomic entities which result from atom smashing may be various stable conglomerates of protons and electrons plus binding energy that make up atoms. All of them disintegrate quickly when freed, and into what I am calling the fundamental particles of matter, protons and electrons. In my view, a neutron is a proton with a very energetic electron in orbit. This electron becomes attractive to neighboring protons in the nucleus. It provides an opposite charge to hold protons together. Each becomes a neutron for a moment, and the neutron becomes stable in this condition. Some configurations may allow a temporary photon to participate in some kind of equilibrium, before change absorbs it again. This kind of photon, being highly energetic, could easily materialize by contact with a neutrino, and we have a beta ray. The energy range of the beta electron may depend on the energy of the incoming neutrino. Done a typo or two like this.

In all fairness, the simple claim that matter and antimatter repel rather than attract as presumed, can be proven or disproven. If it is already a known fact, you are correct. Otherwise, proof or disproof is pending resolution of that question, and with it further elements of this alternative theory. Science could go back to saying "maybe this, and maybe that" until such time. I am saying exactly that.

Quarks are a part of the architecture of the proton and the electron. Maybe it will come to an understanding of the way electric force turns into a mass with a charge, and why the proton has 1830 times the mass of the electron. Beyond that I don't see their relevance to anything. Only six particles are stable in free space and all others have finite lives, even the neutron. And all others spontaneously disintegrate into these six. In this the only contentious issue is the identity of the neutrino. The neutrino however is an integral part of my theory of a Steady State. As such it is the antimatter counterpart of the photon which is otherwise missing from the picture. The properties of the neutrino suggest that it is that antiparticle. Photons materialize, with sufficient energy, and another particle is required to allow the conservation of energy and momentum. This is another requirement fulfilled in materialization in intergalactic space. Also there needs to be a complete symmetry, for which photons are unqualified. They are attracted to matter and thus repelled by antimatter. The required properties could very well be those of the neutrino. And if it has a spectrum of frequencies likewise, the 'flavors' of neutrinos would appear to exist, and also its transformations. Only a few problems with this picture remain. Both matter and antimatter consists of charged particles, but the neutrino has no effect on matter. Either its electric field component is not in our dimensions, or the magnetic field component does the work and is the active agent, or both. Somehow the reversal of charges is significant. This is probably easier solved than the nature of materialization and its laws. In particular, gravitational force has an effect, or may be an effect. There are two event horizons, "black holes" and "white holes", where light energy and dark energy vanish and maximize, one becoming the other. How much do we know about the 'fate' of light? However, many are way more qualified to consider such issues. The formulation of an hypothesis is inductive and intuitive. Then comes the hard work. But nothing guarantees an inductive hypothesis will prove correct in physics, and always as a limiting case as science grows this way. A great many astronomical phenomena support those hypotheses here put forward. Such effects are unlikely in everyday life. In deep space, that's something else. Consider Hoag's Object. This unusual phenomenon appears to me to be a nucleus of one type of material which has had an elliptical galaxy of the other condense around it under its own gravity, but repelled by the isolated nucleus. The nucleus may well have become compressed by repulsion due to the contracting envelope. But the interaction of both types of material is hardly observable since they usually separate when very rarefied, and only become visible as a galactic corona. The other possibilities is the gamma ray burst, a large negative mass colliding with a "white hole", or the steady emission of gamma rays from a spiral galaxy, producing materialization with incoming neutrinos, perpendicular to the antigalactic plane due to repulsion (M82 Spiral Galaxy). This is the situation. Antimatter and matter cannot coexist, and neutrinos only interact with photons, not matter. Therefore our most available evidence concerning antimatter is millions of light years away, and neutrinos have very few observable effects. It will redirect much scientific research to prove the two types of material repel. It will explain an expanding, yet essentially stable universe.

It may be the antitheory required for the "Big Bang" to take a long holiday, with its entourage of ad hoc hypotheses and other Band-Aid doctoring.I still can't believe that it actually emerged AFTER General Relativity, which contradicts it.

A Steady State Universe A Steady State Universe is possible to hypothesise, but requires: 1. The elimination of some currently held hypotheses, which become manifest as contrary to; 2. The acceptance of a finite set of new hypotheses. These new hypotheses are as follows: There are two fundamental particles of matter, the proton and the electron. Each fundamental particle of matter has an antiparticle which is distinguished by having an opposite charge and properties associated with this charge. Outside of this, the question of type (matter or antimatter) is entirely relative to the type of the fundamental particles of the observer. There is no asymmetry. The universe is finite but unbounded. Space may be thought of as a three dimensional surface of a four dimensional hyper sphere w^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2, which can only be visualised by analogy using one less dimension. Matter occupies x, y and z. The dimensions occupied by antiparticles may be other, with certain dimensions in common. Fundamental particles of matter and antimatter are always created from energy, and always annihilated into energy, in pairs. The numbers of each fundamental particle and its antiparticle throughout the universe are identical. Any imbalance in the proton / electron numbers locally is matched by an identical imbalance in the negatron / positron numbers, and will result in reannihilation of the excess. Matter and antimatter repel gravitationally. This accounts for the general acceleration of galactic clusters and antigalactic clusters away from each other. This hypothesis is contestable, as may be conclusions drawn therefrom. To complete the symmetry, the photon has an antiparticle, the neutrino. The neutrino has a gravitational affinity for antimatter, and is repelled by matter. Except for gravitational forces, the energy particles only interact with their own type of material. Photons and neutrinos likewise annihilate to produce material, if energy suffices due to relative frequencies. As galactic clusters and antigalactic clusters separate, energy is continually rematerializing throughout the universe. New material is drawn toward material concentrations of the same type. Matter can reach a density of Gm/rc^ = 1, at which point it is converted into neutrinos, which are gravitationally forced away from the centre of mass. The symmetric situation exists for antimatter, which produces photons under the analogous conditions. The sign of m in the above equation is relative to the observer's light. Atomic nuclei are bound by electric forces by compounding certain stable configurations of protons with electrons of various quantum energies possible. Quazistable states in equilibrium, involving free photons, may produce decay probabilities by interaction with neutrinos. This is also contestable, making half life measurements appear to vary, for instance. Such a universe may have originated as energy, just as the Big Bang alternative is claimed to have originated from matter. All contrary hypotheses need to be inspected in this light for possible alternative explanations of the proposed evidence. For instance, the galactic core, being a neutrino source, could participate in beta decay, by materialisation as stated.

Thanks Mooey, I do really appreciate that. I'm just too far gone, and the rules are too tight for me. But when there's something more earthy to discuss, and after slapping myself around a bit for not behaving - see you then.

I hope this is no replying to the moderator. I am a novice on forums. I had perhaps better finish by saying thank you to all who have been good enough to converse on this topic. Did I lay traps? I don't think so. It's just my mindset, I guess. I do tend to dominate a conversation. Time to go. Prefer rock'n'roll to a chior, and I'm not a creationist.

Have you read the Bible KJV, a representative selection of Edgar Cayce's readings and books based on them, Greek and Roman Mythologies, Books on Astrology and the Tarot, The Upanishads, The Bhagavad Gita, the Serpent Power and other works of Arthur Avalon, the Silmarilion (fiction based on Norwegian folklore), the Quabala, the works of E.A Wallace Budge, curator of Egyptian antiquities at the Brittish Museum. I even read the Book of Mormon to enable discussion, but they never came back. This was after studies in Science and attempts at AI programming (Western and Chinese Chess). This is also empirical evidence. Less cut and dried is all. I don't think we can put spirit (consciousness) in a machine. The order of spirit in man is creative. We have never been threatened by the possibility of chimpanzees fashioning a stone axe. Why? Our spirit is of another order, and supernatural power is also therefore unique to man. We are both 'angel' and beast, as the Revelation says, and also the Divine Pymander of unknown antiquity. The heioglyph for a God was an axe. Rome sank to the level of the beast. The Jews produced Albert Einstein and many, many who have ennobled the human race, by God's hand. Read the book. Deny they exist. Explain their success, even their survival. Read Patience Worth's "Sorry Tale". About Tiberius' Rome and Christ. It can be downloaded from Wiki. It defies explanation. So does Cayce. Both had an eighth grade education. They (Pearl Curran channeled PW) had no conscious idea of the information they produced. This is evidence ignored. Research it and explain it. Explain the Great Pyramid and Sphinx. The Bimini Road Cayce predicted as the first portions of Atlantis to rise again in 1968 - 69, when he died in '45. Explain why a breast feeding child can breath and drink at the same time, an ability it must lose to aquire speach. Explain how the endocrine system is described as to evolutionary function in ancient Indian writings and in the Revelations (24 psychic discourses by Cayce laid this bare). Okay? We don't know everything, and until we perfect, the spirit of Truth, and the powers confered, are closed to mortal man. Therefore the Christ is the Truth, the Light and the Way. Without God, none of this makes any sense. I don't disagree at all, that's actually good to hear. What I'm saying is MOST TRUE, and this can only apply to deduction, not inductive hypotheses, is that God is the greatest abstraction from manifest reality possible, the bottom line for all things, mind and matter, and their connection acording to: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." - Albert Einstein Einstein actually said that the universe may not have an existence INDEPENDENT of the observer, which on two separated levels, makes us both enjoyer and creator of the manifestation. This in "The Divine Pymander" is stated thus: 12. These things I understood, seeing the word of Pymander; and when I was mightily amazed, he said again unto me, "Hast thou seen in thy mind that Archetypal Form, which was before the Interminated and Infinite Beginning?" Thus Pymander to me."But whence," quoth I, "or whereof are the Elements of Nature made?" Pymander : "Of the Will and Counsel of God; which taking the Word, and beholding the beautiful World (in the Archetype thereof) imitated it, and so made this World, by the principles and vital Seeds or Soullike productions of itself." Thus in the image of God made He man is an echo in KJV. The superconscious mind, or consciousness on the other side, can only speak through dream symbolism and intuition, to the mind of the conscious physical life in man. Psychology absolutely refuses to follow such assertions, or any from hypnosis concerning the psyche and psychic abilities or past life memories, much less Edgar Cayce's gift of reading the Akashic record of all souls and channeling the Universal Mind (last Chapter Daniel prophecy).

Well ignored unless disproven. Unsupported by education and media. Supernatural without God is impossible. Nothing is impossible, only improbable. Ignoring evidence doctors statistical conclusions. What's OT? That's a circle. The spore landed at the centre. The magic, not the pot of gold. Graph this, real to complex:(((1+sqrt(5))/2)^x-((1-sqrt(5))/2)^x))/sqrt(5). A growing helix, like your DNA.

Can you repeat that experiment with the same results?Can you perform a miracle (more accurately, will God perform one for you)? Does this mean that no one can?coda. "Evidence, please." "No proof." "You haven't answered the question." "Repeating youself doesn't count." coda. Wow. Bell advised The Beatles to limit sentensed to six words in the movie "A Hard Day's Night". I'll try. Attention spans must exceed short term memory retention rates, I guess.

This sounds exactly like what I just said, believing what suits at the time. I'll give you this much. To be faithless, is to believe anything that fits the occasion, and that's insanity.

In order to get a grip on the issues at hand, I have defined a person's faith as equivalent to their belief system, or delusional architecture, or more simply, their set of beliefs. "What is your faith" has that usage. "Have faith that the Lord will provide", to me, is a devolution of the proper concept. "Trust that the Lord will provide" is sufficient. This has occurred also with "taking the name of the Lord in vain", which has nothing to do with calling on Him, rather the misapplication of religion for profit and power. You will discover that Edgar Cayce was no such soul. The issues at hand are quite scientific, and pertain to another misapplied concept. A belief is another name for an hypothesis or a theory, although greater abstraction is usually implied by the last two. One can never prove a theory right. One counter example is required to prove it wrong. And even though contradiction and contrariety can coexist in the human skull, and do more often than not, the best minds derive a consistent set of beliefs from available evidence. Einstein was a remarkably honest man, I have read, and this, I believe, contributes greatly to genius. Many will easily believe that which suits selfish purposes at any particular time, and may easily find themselves on the highway to confusion and insanity. Nonbelief is still a part of a belief system (or delusional architecture). I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I think I'm safe there. You may not believe in God. Would you be as safe, do you think? And as for Greek mythology, Edgar Cayce was recounting incarnations from the Trojan War, before it was discovered to have existed. He gave information that the Wooden Horse was set alight to decoy the guard from the gate of Troy. The population was enslaved or murdered to protect this military secret. One may ask, how else would the alarm not have been raised in time? As for the Olympian Gods and Goddesses, they have parallel names in other cultures, representing the planets. Even their moons, like the two of Mars, the God of War, were sons whose names meant Alarm and Panic. Thus they symbolise the character traits indicated by astrology. Discarnate souls sojourn there, in other dimensions of consciousness of which the aspects are the three dimensional projection, in preparation for return to the material life. If this sounds bananas to you, Carl Jung and Isaac Newton were also nuts. Halley: Sir Isaac, how can someone as leaned as you believe such foolishness as Astrology? Newton: Because Sir, I have studied it, and you have not. Jung: Psychology will accept Astrology without further restriction, because it represents the sum total of knowledge of the human psyche [meaning soul] from antiquity. These quotes come from books on the subject. Either this is fabrication, or psychology is seriously misrepresenting itself and needs another name. Edgar Cayce affirms Astrology, but interprets it more consistently with righteousness, and the evolving soul. To many today, righteousness is just being more right than the next guy, and deserves to be rewarded.

How could there be wars if people did not believe contrary information? Why is every war based on some high moral platform, like 'freeing the slaves', when they are always about money? The price is, however, rods for the backs of our leaders. Slowly we advance toward universal consistency. Great change is always traumatic. Laws, as the one commencing this thread, are not easily drafted, clearly. This forum has its own rules. They are respected, if perhaps confusing to some, and need to be enforced. The resulting consensus becomes your belief system, in a forum, discipline or nation. Thus are the pillars of law and liberty raised, laws to protect rights, and liberty as freedoms acquired, but they may take some fine tuning. Truth, justice and liberty are the guiding principles of the Jewish people, and not only preserved them where only the Gypsies and Mason have done the same, as isolated peoples with a unique dharma, but made at least two out of three more powerful as a result. Nonbelief is nonexistence. Your beliefs are quite specific. But being creativity incarnate, nothing is more changeable than man, even potentially infinite. Still, he will ever, being differentiated and specialised, rely on the argument from authority, and official authority is very persuasive.

Now that I've stopped laughing, I'll attempt a definition. A religion is a person's faith. This word is misapplied as 'belief' to some extent. A person's faith is a belief system, which can be anything from vacuous to an extensive philosophy, concerning your reality. The laws of science have been narrowly restricted to the productions of the senses, by the 'reproducible experiment' clause. They do not extend into questions of universal purpose, evolution of souls and karma, ethics and such. The faith or belief system of a religious person can range from the sacraments of that religion and a few representative pieces of its scripture, to its entire scripture, and depending on the consistency of his interpretations, may extend well into any or all religions, arts and sciences. The faith, as the knowledge and understanding of scripture (without limitation) is what Christ referred to when he said 'if your faith was like a grain of mustard seed, you could move mountains' (paraphrased). The resulting tree that can grow is huge by comparison. A line from "The Philosopher's Stone" states: Twelfthly: Therefore I am called Hermes Trimegistus, having three parts of the philosophy of the Whole World. This is implying that a belief system including the reality of God solves many intangible problems, or ones that would require a well-reasoned opinion based on very much data. Specifically, it becomes necessary to determine the existence of intelligence in the workings of the universe. Of this Albert Einstein, and many others among the masters of Science, were not in doubt. Hermes is by many traditions believed to be one of the appearances of Christ. In the Judeo-Christian scripture, the same manifestation (he is said to have simply materialised in the (NT) Book of Hebrews) is called Melchizedek (OT) and Melchisedec (NT), Mercury to the Romans; Thoth or Tehuti were Egyptian equivalents of the Greek Hermes. Soap boxing is justifiably contrary to science, as it cannot defend itself in the light of reason. It is based only on belief and an incomplete faith, but as such is another step on the road, as no one can believe that which is condemning. The following book is most remarkable, and has taken me from the tiny mustard seed to the great plant where birds can nest. It is one of the principle texts of Masonry and consistent with KJV, and many other faiths. Its antiquity is more ancient. I will quote a fundamental line and provide a link: 4. Be Pious and Religious, O my Son, for he that doth so, is the best and highest Philosopher; and without Philosophy, it is impossible ever to attain to the height and exactness of Piety or Religion. http://www.theosophical.ca/books/DivinePymanderOfHermesMercuriusTrismegistus,The.pdf And yes, the belief in leprechauns would qualify, and may even have benefits. No doubt the contrary stance may be somewhat better informed. But are you absolutely sure? Can you ever be? All you may ever know is that all your beliefs are consistent. More evidence can always prove you wrong. This is logic, not doubt I am casting. But won't it shatter you to see one, or to watch someone make broomsticks dance? "There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case. " Albert Einstein.

What I'm saying is that the conflict between religions that inspired such laws was interdenominational Christianity. Martin Luthor was the first to escape Catholic execution for contradicting the Pope and murderous prelates. Many people escaped to America to dodge such persecution. He himself belonged to an order that took no such stance. Unless I'm mistaken, he, like many others involved in establishing Washington were Masons, whose only requirement is that you believe in ANY God, regardless of denominational persuasion or, for that matter, non Christian religion, or some more personal understanding of the Deity. You don't get in as an aetheist, though. I see aetheism as another possible step along the road we must all travel from ignorance to perfection. I think, though, that it is safe to assume that most legislators were at least required to profess Christianity for respect at that time, being the public faith and morality of decent people.

If you remember, it was the Beatles, who took America by storm with #1 - 6 consecutive hits in the chart on ARRIVAL there, against all possible corporate opposition, that largely introduced the West to Eastern ideas, Hare Chrisna and other hitherto Pagan beliefs. Do you detect the influence of leprocauns? Part of Ireland IS part of the UK. What else could it be? Mia Farrow was big. Her sister Prudence inspired a famous song. Hoffman's lysergic acid diethylamide popped into their coffee unexpectedly. More leprocauns. The influence of a serotonin derivative (from the pituitary). Edgar Cayce told me in church last night, psychically of course, that the pineal and pituitary grands were responsible for second sight. Thanks mate. How the hell did ancient people have a clue about the bottom line of medical explanations for the body AND mind. And thanks for the humour, that's funny stuff. But maybe the Little Red Book is off the mark with the argument from ancient wisdom. Why? And by the way, no one answered my Big Bang question. Fair is fair.