http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010407/bob14.asp

quote:Quintessence takes on a different form and strength depending on what time it is in the universe. Scientists have established that just after the Big Bang, high-energy radiation filled the universe and was the dominant form of energy. Matter contributed very little to the cosmic-energy budget. In that era, quintessence would have mimicked the properties of radiation, Steinhardt says. Like radiation, it would have exerted positive pressure.

As the universe cooled and particles slowed, the energy balance shifted in favor of matter. Material started to clump together to form larger structures. Steinhardt proposes that at the onset of that era, some 50,000 years after the Big Bang, quintessence changed. As he and his colleagues see it, quintessence—dark energy—settled down to a fixed value and began exerting a negative pressure throughout the cosmos.

It all starts to sound wierdly like the dark force (dark because it is invisible to us) refered to in many satanic doctrines - and is essentially the center of Satanism.

http://noctuliusworks.satanicwebsites.com/custom3.html http://www.satanservice.org/theory/osvstnsm2.txt

To me its pretty interesting - since satanism has had this force as the centre of its doctrines since its existence...science only discovers it now.

Hmmm...

good reading material but one could point out that cosmic forces/energies are hardly the product/means of 'Satanic fortune/forthcomings' considering that almost all energy is indistructable.

Maybe energy can be channelled into the creation of that which is Satanic but not 'universal'?!?!?

in satanism this "dark force" is called a "dark force" because it is considered opposite to light as in god.

in cosmology, the "dark" in dark force refers to the fact that it is unobservable.

completely different.

no you cant bastardise science to twist it to make it prove your irrational bullshit beliefs.

quote:in satanism this "dark force" is called a "dark force" because it is considered opposite to light as in god.

in cosmology, the "dark" in dark force refers to the fact that it is unobservable.

completely different.

*sigh* Your ignorance is unbelievable - just because you do not understand something, do not make assumptions.

In Satanism; just as in cosmology, the force is refered to dark because you cannot observe it.

Satanists do not believe in the duality of the universe, there is no opposite light Vs. good. We do not believe in God, so how can we believe in Gods opposites.

quote:Why is this force known as "Dark"? The force which manifests through all life is dark because one cannot see it with their eyes. LaVey claimed that it was dark because it was hidden.

quote:Satan is the dark force in nature. Satanists do not see that nature contains a dark and light force, the dark force is nature. Nature is uncaring, part of it's natural processes is death. Satan is death, a returning to the Earth of one's own elements. Good is derived from chaos and evil and not from will or motive. Altruism is long term selfishness and the recognition of this forms the Satanists' reverence for the dark force in nature.

Do you need any more quotes about just how wrong you are??

quote:no you cant bastardise science to twist it to make it prove your irrational bullshit beliefs.

First, I have twisted nothing - indeed, it is you who twisted the meaning of 'dark' to suit your own beliefs.

Second, there is nothing irrational about my beliefs.

I don't see any similarities. What are they? That they are both use the adjective "dark" to describe how we cannot see them? Science had used the term "dark" to denote something we cannot percieve before LaVey did.

Quoting Anton LaVey on astrophysics would be alot like quoting Alice Cooper on quantum mechanics.

They're both going to put an *evil* spin on it, just for the sake of theatrics.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Quoting Anton LaVey on astrophysics would be alot like quoting Alice Cooper on quantum mechanics.

They're both going to put an *evil* spin on it, just for the sake of theatrics.

Bad comparison - not an opposite case.

Comparisons are most effective when a polar opposite is used.

ie - "Quoting Anton LaVey on astrophysics would be alot like quoting Einstein on satanism."

This post brought to you by the Council for Greater Eloquence, Totse subdivision.

What's the opposite of an engineer?

I'm assuming you're talking about Einstein.

Not so much the engineer, as the mathematician. And he was also religious.

Unless I'm missing something. Tired here, sorry.

Edit: It's not the best comparison, but at least it's a comparison of opposites. Sure, I could do better, but the A+ edge is leaving me, y'know?

[This message has been edited by Nephtys-Ra (edited 09-27-2005).]

quote:I don't see any similarities. What are they? That they are both use the adjective "dark" to describe how we cannot see them? Science had used the term "dark" to denote something we cannot percieve before LaVey did.

Yes one way in which they are similir is that they use the adjective 'dark' to describe the energy/force. However, that is not the only way...

The Scientists...

quote:Quintessence takes on a different form and strength depending on what time it is in the universe. Scientists have established that just after the Big Bang, high-energy radiation filled the universe and was the dominant form of energy. Matter contributed very little to the cosmic-energy budget. In that era, quintessence would have mimicked the properties of radiation, Steinhardt says. Like radiation, it would have exerted positive pressure.

As the universe cooled and particles slowed, the energy balance shifted in favor of matter. Material started to clump together to form larger structures. Steinhardt proposes that at the onset of that era, some 50,000 years after the Big Bang, quintessence changed. As he and his colleagues see it, quintessence—dark energy—settled down to a fixed value and began exerting a negative pressure throughout the cosmos.



The Satanists...

quote:So what is this Dark Force in Nature? We know. Now you know. Our ancient words for this? "SAT" is the DARK Itness Itself. Stretching forth after the Big Bang: "TAN" is – 2nd and 3rd Laws of Entropy a/k/a Dark FORCE IN - repeat, IN all Nature, permeating it, motivating it, relentlessly – onto change.

quote:We say the Dark Force TRANSCENDS nature, existed BEFORE the Cosmos

quote:Entropy is energy unavailable to do work. It's not a force in physics. But it's a measurement of Something acting on energy/matter.

As a force it is the "force" that drives all particles to higher states of disorder and lower mean temperatures. It is the force that "jerks" photons to the speed of light (useless energy tends to come in photon form). In stars, gravity constantly "pulls" inward creating high friction by transforming matter into energy. Entropy drives this energy outward and converts it into electromagnetic radiation (photons)

quote:I tend to see entropy and gravity as one-in-the-same "opposites at first glance." Something blows through what we call the Closed Gate and space itself expands faster than the gravity caused by mass in galaxies can stop it. What will they call this when they discover it? Dark Force?

quote:Anyway, for the first three measurable minutes or so into the universe's "life" (the metaphor here is that the universe has just been "born"), its contents consisted almost entirely of what you would recognize to be "light," i. e. the universe was still too symmetrical for there to be two kinds of "things" in it: light-energy versus matter. Scientifically untrained people are correct to regard light as "energy," but they seem thrown by the idea from modern physical theory that matter is also "energy".

quote:so what was once a universe full of what one might call "photon-like" (light) particles of very high symmetry (what Dark Doctrine refers to as Vajre or Hochmah, note that regular photon light is not called "Vajre" or "Hochmah"), there came into being - through one symmetry downfall after another - a veritable "zoo" of elementary particles, some forming the first atoms of hydrogen, now the most abundant elementary matter formation in the cosmos aside from light itself (which consists of particle-like wave-packets today called "photons").

I can give you the links to the Satanic sites i'm quoting if you are interested further.

quote:Originally posted by Nephtys-Ra:

Bad comparison - not an opposite case.

Comparisons are most effective when a polar opposite is used.

Even when you're comparing the similarities between two crackpots and their "dark" interpretation of science?

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Yes one way in which they are similir is that they use the adjective 'dark' to describe the energy/force.

Well that's a very trivial similarity, don't you think?. Like I said it is something that was used before LaVey was even born. The similarities are really with Science itself, not with Satanism.

quote:

However, that is not the only way...

[...]



I still don't see it. What I do see is Satanists spouting some new-age babble, nothing else.

Examples:

"Why is this force known as "Dark"? The force which manifests through all life is dark because one cannot see it with their eyes.



" Dark FORCE IN - repeat, IN all Nature, permeating it, motivating it, relentlessly – onto change. "

Is dark energy "something that manifests through all life"? No.

"We say the Dark Force TRANSCENDS nature, existed BEFORE the Cosmos"

Does dark energy "transcend" nature (whatever the hell that means)? Did it exist before the cosmos? No.

Haha - yes it is a trivial similarity; i was just re-iterating what you said, i then continued to say that while that is the only similarity that you percieved there are actually others.

quote:I still don't see it. What I do see is Satanists spouting some new-age babble, nothing else.

Interesting...you seem to think that this is some kind of neo-pagan style religion...it is not. It can be traced back into the middle ages - yet its roots lie much further back...pre-christian, of course it wasn't called Satanism in pre-christian times but it is there. another quote:

quote:The Slavic Pre-Christian tribes had the same identical concept and called it CHARNAYA BOG - nothing much is known of THEIR OWN Dark Doctrine: they got forcibly Christianized and it was obviously wiped out. It also didn’t help when Tatars that ruled them for so long became Moslems during Batu Khan’s time. But that concept of VITALITY of a kind can be seen there, even during Atheist Soviet Union times - their views of Nature were different from those in the West. Charnaya Bog means Black God. Kara Bog is Tatar for Black God: same as MAHAKALA of the Buddhist Tatars and Tibetans: GREAT BLACKNESS. NONE of these people were dualist and that they tuned into Dialectical Materialists is no surprise: that’s Dark Doctrine applied to the practical world of socio-economics and politics!

quote:Does dark energy "transcend" nature (whatever the hell that means)? Did it exist before the cosmos? No.

Nature is what we know as our universe, to transcend nature would be to exist before the universe. Did dark energy exist before our cosmos? you say no - satanists say yes...you base your answer on science...does science know this for sure?

quote:Is dark energy "something that manifests through all life"? No.

Is it not? What is holding our universe together due to its negative pressure? Dark energy.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Interesting...you seem to think that this is some kind of neo-pagan style religion...it is not. It can be traced back into the middle ages - yet its roots lie much further back...pre-christian, of course it wasn't called Satanism in pre-christian times but it is there. another quote:

And where exactly do you think those "new-agers" get their silly beliefs from? Pagan/druidic rituals and ceremonies, among other sources.



quote:Nature is what we know as our universe, to transcend nature would be to exist before the universe. Did dark energy exist before our cosmos? you say no - satanists say yes...you base your answer on science...does science know this for sure?

Could you please explain how it could have existed before the universe? Moreover, please explain how it would be a "force" then. Also, please explain why it would be "dark".



quote:

Is it not? What is holding our universe together due to its negative pressure? Dark energy.



1. How does providing an extra force to the expansion of the universe, at all equal "something that manifests through all life"? It doesn't.

2. To claim that it is "holding the universe together", while true, fails to take everything into consideration. The universe could easily exist without it, the difference being that the expansion we would be seeing would not be accelerating, but de-accelerating.

quote:Could you please explain how it could have existed before the universe? Moreover, please explain how it would be a "force" then. Also, please explain why it would be "dark".

Could it have existed forever? Is that impossible?

It is dark because it is unobservable - in the same way a 'push' force is unobservable.

You want to know why Satanists call it a force whilst scientists call it energy? Hope this satisfies

quote:Entropy is energy unavailable to do work. It's not a force in physics. But it's a measurement of Something acting on energy/matter.

As a force it is the "force" that drives all particles to higher states of disorder and lower mean temperatures. It is the force that "jerks" photons to the speed of light (useless energy tends to come in photon form). In stars, gravity constantly "pulls" inward creating high friction by transforming matter into energy. Entropy drives this energy outward and converts it into electromagnetic radiation (photons). Now while you can SEE quarks, photons, electrons, you can not SEE entropy: it's HIDDEN. Occult means hidden. Dark is OUR word for it

If you are even more interested and want to read some of the serious stuff then here is a link. http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=10&aid=110

quote:How does providing an extra force to the expansion of the universe, at all equal "something that manifests through all life"? It doesn't.

To manifest it must be apparant; clearly able to be percieved. Dark energy is omnipresent throughout our cosmos, think of it in the same way as gravity is manifested though all life. Becasue most of us have never been without gravity we do not notice it distictly every second of everyday - yet we would notice it in its abscence. Gravity manifests itself through all life in the same way dark energy does. Hope that analogy is good enough.

quote:To claim that it is "holding the universe together", while true, fails to take everything into consideration. The universe could easily exist without it, the difference being that the expansion we would be seeing would not be accelerating, but de-accelerating.

Heh, the universe could exist without many things - i don't believe dark energy is one of them because i believe that it existed before our universe...however those are just my beliefs - you want scientific evidence and science isn't advanced enough to know how our universe came into existence my beliefs are neither verified nor falsified. I'm not going to invoke the 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

Daz, how can you even start to believe this crap about satanism being linked to theories of dark energy in physics? Weren't you the one arguing with me in full detail last month saying that a soul cannot exist due to it being an immaterial object? I could probably find so many articles on "white light" for example and and provide an arbitrary link to the existance of a soul like you do for "dark energy" to satanism, yet you would likely still refuse to even consider the idea of a soul as believable. How ridiculous.

Indeed i was.

My beliefs have not changed, i still do not believe in a 'soul' or any other 'immaterial' object. White light? I just googled it and found nothing about souls, what exactly are you talking about??

Saying what you could probably do and assume that you are right about the outcome of what you could probably do is ridiculous.

Find these links...

I refuse the idea of a soul because it is logically irrational and there is nothing in science that could even be compared to a soul.

Daz.

Your refering to a relation between this and satanism.

But the only evidence you give is that it is refered to as "dark" similar to the satanic prophecies refering to "dark" powers or whatever, this is the only connection you have int his area.

Meh sleep edit later.

quote:Originally posted by Lou Reed:

one could point out that cosmic forces/energies are hardly the product/means of 'Satanic fortune/forthcomings' considering that almost all energy is indistructable.

Maybe energy can be channelled into the creation of that which is Satanic but not 'universal'?!?!?

[/B]

Also,

there is the point that all things that we are aware of wed are fact/theory/religous need to be defined to be reccognised. And since man is fearful of that which he dont know, then will define it as such.

Light - good

Darkness - hmmm... i'll get back to ya on that

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Could it have existed forever? Is that impossible?

It is dark because it is unobservable - in the same way a 'push' force is unobservable.

You want to know why Satanists call it a force whilst scientists call it energy? Hope this satisfies

Not. It doesn't satisfy because you didn't deal with anything I asked.

1. I asked how it could exist without an universe. If it exists, then existing somehwere is a requirement, don't you think?

2. Yes. It is "dark" because nobody can observe it, which begs the question, how the hell can you know that when it supposedly existed before life did. The term "dark" ceases to have any meaning if nobody is there to tell how "dark" it really is.

3. No. I want to know how it could be a force when there would be nothing for it to exert energy on at that time (before the "cosmos").

quote:To manifest it must be apparant; clearly able to be percieved. Dark energy is omnipresent throughout our cosmos, think of it in the same way as gravity is manifested though all life. Becasue most of us have never been without gravity we do not notice it distictly every second of everyday - yet we would notice it in its abscence. Gravity manifests itself through all life in the same way dark energy does. Hope that analogy is good enoug

Your analogy fails because it is nothing like gravity. It most certainly does not "manifest itself through all living things", nor do all living things "feel" it.

quote:Heh, the universe could exist without many things - i don't believe dark energy is one of them because i believe that it existed before our universe...however those are just my beliefs - you want scientific evidence and science isn't advanced enough to know how our universe came into existence my beliefs are neither verified nor falsified. I'm not going to invoke the 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

I don't want scientific evidence, I want Satanists speaking about "the Dark force" with the same scientific specificationss as science speaks of "Dark energy". You haven't given this to me. You have given new-age babble.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

What's the opposite of an engineer?

Human labour, in other words, your dumb subhuman ass picking cotton.

quote:Daz.

Your refering to a relation between this and satanism.

But the only evidence you give is that it is refered to as "dark" similar to the satanic prophecies refering to "dark" powers or whatever, this is the only connection you have int his area.

Half of this thread has been me trying to show Rust other similarities - have you even read this thread and the links provided?

quote:Light - good

Darkness - hmmm... i'll get back to ya on that

Satanists do not think in the same dualistic way as most people; instead that good and bad are part of the same thing and not opposites, the universe is more of a nuetral gray to Satanists rather than the light and dark that you refer to.

quote: I asked how it could exist without an universe. If it exists, then existing somehwere is a requirement, don't you think?

It exists everywhere - it doesn't need a universe to exist in because the universe exists within it.

quote:Yes. It is "dark" because nobody can observe it, which begs the question, how the hell can you know that when it supposedly existed before life did. The term "dark" ceases to have any meaning if nobody is there to tell how "dark" it really is.

Sounds scarily similir to the question of whether a tree falling in a deserted forest makes a noise...well the tree makes a noise in the same way that the force was as dark then as it is now. Things don't change when no one is there to observe them.

quote:No. I want to know how it could be a force when there would be nothing for it to exert energy on at that time (before the "cosmos").

Ah. Of course - my mistake.

"No one ever said that entropy was a "force" as in the 4 forces in physics. Nor did anyone say it was a particle. We said it AFFECTS particles. It DIRECTS the 4 forces. (The 4 forces are Gravity, Electro-magnetism, Weak and Strong - in physics. Weak and strong are primarily "nuclear" or atomic forces.)

As mentioned before, when people claim to feel the "dark hidden force" do they know that science does have an aexplanation for it? Do they ever describe it well enough to make it recognizable to a person who does know science? IT DOES have an explanation: if you want the force behind evolution itself, change of Gibbs energy resulting in increased entropy: is IT. But remember what Resnick said about this.

SO: The 2nd and 3rd Law of Entropy permeates and motivates all of Nature.

A Dark Hidden Force permeates and motivates all of Nature."

quote:Your analogy fails because it is nothing like gravity. It most certainly does not "manifest itself through all living things", nor do all living things "feel" it.

I disagree - it is similir to gravity in the way that while it constantly effects us we are not constantly consciously aware of it. You are right, not all living things do 'feel' it; however, all living things do have the capacity to feel it. It starts to get a little more esoteric after that - but i am willing to continue.

quote:I don't want scientific evidence, I want Satanists speaking about "the Dark force" with the same scientific specificationss as science speaks of "Dark energy".

We both know that the specifications are not going to be exact equals between satanism and science - in the same way that ancient theories about the world are similir and not exact to todays theories. I, however, believe that the connections are there.

*shrug* maybe i need to do more research.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

It exists everywhere - it doesn't need a universe to exist in because the universe exists within it.

Not only did you say absolutely nothing of significance in that sentence, but you managed to refute any similarities completely.

quote:Sounds scarily similir to the question of whether a tree falling in a deserted forest makes a noise...well the tree makes a noise in the same way that the force was as dark then as it is now. Things don't change when no one is there to observe them.

They do, on the other hand, become redundantly stupid to remained being called "dark" when that has no significance. But that's a minor detail.

quote:Ah. Of course - my mistake.

I'm still waiting. What you quoted below did nothing to answer my question.

quote:I disagree - it is similir to gravity in the way that while it constantly effects us we are not constantly consciously aware of it. You are right, not all living things do 'feel' it; however, all living things do have the capacity to feel it. It starts to get a little more esoteric after that - but i am willing to continue.

Then that is another trivial similarity worth nothing. Everyone has the capacity to feel my penis. Does that mean that my penis is analogous to dark force?

quote:We both know that the specifications are not going to be exact equals between satanism and science - in the same way that ancient theories about the world are similir and not exact to todays theories. I, however, believe that the connections are there.

*shrug* maybe i need to do more research.

The only connections you've managed to show are trivial ones, ones that could be connected with practically anything in the world.

quote:Not only did you say absolutely nothing of significance in that sentence, but you managed to refute any similarities completely.

Haha - actually i replied to your question of 'how it could exist without the universe' you thought that it needed a universe to exist it all i did was switch it around. You seem to have no problems with dark energy existing within the universe; so why do you have a problem with the universe existing within dark energy?

quote:They do, on the other hand, become redundantly stupid to remained being called "dark" when that has no significance. But that's a minor detail.

So we should not call it sound when no one is around to hear it? That is the redundantly stupid thing.

quote:I'm still waiting. What you quoted below did nothing to answer my question.

Well actually it did. You asked how it could be a force - i quoted a small paragraph explaining this. Your misunderstanding of the quotation does not equate to the quotation not answering your question.

quote:Then that is another trivial similarity worth nothing. Everyone has the capacity to feel my penis. Does that mean that my penis is analogous to dark force?

No, because your penis is not constantly effecting us and constantly in our presence - a lame analogy at best. The dark force however is constantly in our presence and is constantly effecting us; therefore those who choose to feel it will, in the same way that those who choose to live their lives being consciously aware that gravity is effecting them.

quote:The only connections you've managed to show are trivial ones, ones that could be connected with practically anything in the world.

You choosing to ignore them does not make them trivial.

http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=10&aid=110 http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=10&aid=15 http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=10&aid=218 http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=10&aid=22

Read these if you want the satanists complete picture of the dark force.

Because not all things are confirmed by science does not mean that they are not truths; could science just not have discovered the entire nature of dark energy? Of course, the study of dark energy is still in its infancy so at times it is hard to find similarities between science and Satanism. As i've shown, and you have ignored, they are there.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Haha - actually i replied to your question of 'how it could exist without the universe' you thought that it needed a universe to exist it all i did was switch it around. You seem to have no problems with dark energy existing within the universe; so why do you have a problem with the universe existing within dark energy?

Because it's illogical;. It's new-age hippy bullshit. Doublespeak. Idiocy. It's bullshit wraped in a pseudo-intellectual wrapper ready for the consumption of idiots.

Prove to me that the universe can exist within "dark energy". If you don't, then you have no point. If you do, then you've just added another difference between "dark energy" and "dark force", since Science does not believe for a minute that the "universe exists (or used to exist) within dark energy".

quote:So we should not call it sound when no one is around to hear it? That is the redundantly stupid thing.

Terrible logic. They are completely different. Sound is a noun, not an adjective. Adjectives are meaningless if there is nobody to noticed a difference. The relevant analogy would be calling it a "loud sound" when nobody was around to hear it. You can't say if it's loud if you didn't experience it, just as you can't say it is "dark" (or "observable" in this case) if you aren't there to see it.

quote:Well actually it did. You asked how it could be a force - i quoted a small paragraph explaining this. Your misunderstanding of the quotation does not equate to the quotation not answering your question.

Wrong. It did no such thing. In fact, you actually changed my question. I specifically asked:

" I want to know how it could be a force when there would be nothing for it to exert energy on at that time (before the "cosmos")"

Quote it again and highlight the parts where you claim the quotation explains how it could be a force ("A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application." or in a mathematical formula, F= ma) when there is nothing to exert energy on and accelerate. If you caught on the subtle (and by subtle I mean huge) hints: it can't be a force if it can't accelerate anything because nothing else exists!

quote:No, because your penis is not constantly effecting us and constantly in our presence - a lame analogy at best. The dark force however is constantly in our presence and is constantly effecting us; therefore those who choose to feel it will, in the same way that those who choose to live their lives being consciously aware that gravity is effecting them.

How is the "dark force" constantly affecting us... when you said that we don't all percieve it, but have the possibility of percieving it? You're contradicting yourself.

The point stands until you remove this glaring contradiction.

quote:You choosing to ignore them does not make them trivial.

And you believing in them does not make them important. How very productive this exchage was!

quote:Because not all things are confirmed by science does not mean that they are not truths; could science just not have discovered the entire nature of dark energy? Of course, the study of dark energy is still in its infancy so at times it is hard to find similarities between science and Satanism. As i've shown, and you have ignored, they are there.

Wrong. The only thing you have "shown" is that they share the name "dark", and that they are constantly "affecting us" (which you haven't proven at all by the way).

How bad of me to ignore something as trivial and as unsupported as those two things!



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-28-2005).]

quote:Because it's illogical;. It's new-age hippy bullshit. Doublespeak. Idiocy. It's bullshit wraped in a pseudo-intellectual wrapper ready for the consumption of idiots.

Easy to say it's illogical without saying how or why isn't it? That doesn't achieve anything at all.

quote:Prove to me that the universe can exist within "dark energy". If you don't, then you have no point. If you do, then you've just added another difference between "dark energy" and "dark force", since Science does not believe for a minute that the "universe exists (or used to exist) within dark energy".

Think of dark energy as a blanket that covered everything before the existence of the universe - the universe was born within this blanket therefore the universe exists within dark energy. I can not prove this and science can not disprove it, therefore the point is moot and because you rely on the methodology of science alone there is no point discussing this point further.

quote:Terrible logic. They are completely different. Sound is a noun, not an adjective. Adjectives are meaningless if there is nobody to noticed a difference. The relevant analogy would be calling it a "loud sound" when nobody was around to hear it. You can't say if it's loud if you didn't experience it, just as you can't say it is "dark" (or "observable" in this case) if you aren't there to see it.

What reason would there be to change from observable to unobservable? Until you can provide a sufficient cause for it to change from 'un-dark' to 'dark' we might as well assume that it has always been unobservable.

quote: Quote it again and highlight the parts where you claim the quotation explains how it could be a force ("A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application." or in a mathematical formula, F= ma) when there is nothing to exert energy on and accelerate. If you caught on the subtle (and by subtle I mean huge) hints: it can't be a force if it can't accelerate anything because nothing else exists!

"No one ever said that entropy was a "force" as in the 4 forces in physics. Nor did anyone say it was a particle. We said it AFFECTS particles. It DIRECTS the 4 forces. (The 4 forces are Gravity, Electro-magnetism, Weak and Strong - in physics. Weak and strong are primarily "nuclear" or atomic forces.)

As mentioned before, when people claim to feel the "dark hidden force" do they know that science does have an aexplanation for it? Do they ever describe it well enough to make it recognizable to a person who does know science? IT DOES have an explanation: if you want the force behind evolution itself, change of Gibbs energy resulting in increased entropy: is IT. But remember what Resnick said about this.

SO: The 2nd and 3rd Law of Entropy permeates and motivates all of Nature.

A Dark Hidden Force permeates and motivates all of Nature."

Notice that it is not a force as your dictionary would define it. Notice also that dark energy is not like your conventional energy - perhaps it acted on itself and hence the birth of the universe.

quote:How is the "dark force" constantly affecting us... when you said that we don't all percieve it, but have the possibility of percieving it? You're contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction. You seem to have trouble grasping the analogy of gravity; i'll try and make it simpler. Gravity is constantly effecting us. Someone who is not consciously aware of gravity is still effected by it. The dark force is constantly effecting us, someone who is consciously unaware of it is still effected by it. They do not percieve it consciously but it still effects them.

[This message has been edited by Daz (edited 09-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

My beliefs have not changed, i still do not believe in a 'soul' or any other 'immaterial' object.

Yet you believe in satanism and some dark force described in its disreputable doctrines.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

White light? I just googled it and found nothing about souls, what exactly are you talking about??



Dark energy? I just googled it and found nothing about satanism, what exactly are you talking about?

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Saying what you could probably do and assume that you are right about the outcome of what you could probably do is ridiculous.

Find these links...



First of all I know I can find web pages on white light and provide a correlation to other web pages on the existance of souls. It doesn't prove anything as I never said that I am right. I simple said I could provide a link, not a URL like you misinterpret but rather an association between articles regarding white light and other articles regarding the existance of souls. Reread my statement carefully about the link.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

I refuse the idea of a soul because it is logically irrational and there is nothing in science that could even be compared to a soul.

I refuse the idea of satanism being a factor of dark energy because it is logically irrational and there is nothing in science that could even compare satan to dark energy.

Daz, you are obviously confused about dark energy used in science to describe a force which explains the cause of the expansion of the universe. This is in no way related to dark energy used in satanic doctrines to explain who the fuck cares what, since satanism is a fucking joke backed by fucking crackpots. Please don't mention crap to me again about logic and rationality if you don't intend to use them.

And finaly if you truely believe such satanic doctrines are scientific in nature then take your bullshit to the Mad Scientists forum along with all those links to sites that prove your theory of dark energy and see what kind of response you get from the qualified experts.

quote:Yet you believe in satanism and some dark force described in its disreputable doctrines.

Yes. Do you believe in entropy?

quote:Dark energy? I just googled it and found nothing about satanism, what exactly are you talking about?

I lied when i said i googled white light - i googled white light and souls; now go google dark energy and satanism.

quote:First of all I know I can find web pages on white light and provide a correlation to other web pages on the existance of souls.

Prove it.

quote:I refuse the idea of satanism being a factor of dark energy because it is logically irrational and there is nothing in science that could even compare satan to dark energy.

Have you read the rest of this thread??

quote:Daz, you are obviously confused about dark energy used in science to describe a force which explains the cause of the expansion of the universe.

Indeed that is one purpose of it.

quote:This is in no way related to dark energy used in satanic doctrines to explain who the fuck cares what

If you don't know what it explains then how can you say what it is and isn't related to? In fact - if you don't know what it is why are you even commenting on it?

quote:since satanism is a fucking joke backed by fucking crackpots. Please don't mention crap to me again about logic and rationality if you don't intend to use them.

Where haven't i been rational? what is funny about satanism? who are the crackpots? have you read the links i've posted? do you understand them?

Once again - you are commenting on things you either do not know about or are incapable of understanding.

[This message has been edited by Daz (edited 09-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Do you believe in entropy

Describe entropy. If you are reffering to it as a force such as described in those links about satanism I read, then no I do not believe in entropy as a fundamental force. If you give a definition of the term in a dictionary and ask if I believe in it, then yes, I do believe in entropy. Either way I don't think entropy has anything to do with satanism.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

I lied when i said i googled white light - i googled white light and souls; now go google dark energy and satanism.

I never said I could correlate them both in the same webpage although if I looked hard enough online I'm sure I could find a site with enough information to do so, but you'd still be missing the point. What I was trying to explain was that I could first google "white light" and find some page, and then after that google "soul" and find some different page. I would then be able to find correlations in those two different pages that associate the term "white light" with the term "soul". I didn't mean google both "white light" and "soul" in the same search to find a single page that already correlates them both although it might be possible if I decided to invest enough time browsing the internet. Anyways my point was to prove that the link between "white light" and "soul" is arbitrary and doesn't prove shit just like any link you have provided so far that tries to correlate "dark energy" and "satanism" together.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Have you read the rest of this thread??

Yes, I have, along with the links to the sites you provided detailing satanism and its doctrines. After reading all the crap linked in this thread I'd have to say that the only one with a reputable author giving credence to sources other than his own along with references would be the first article at the very beggining: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010407/bob14.asp

If you payed attention and did a little research to the authors of the rest of the pages you linked they are not reputable by any means. Look them up for yourself and tell me what kind of degree or qualifications do they have to give integrity to their articles which they write themselves unlike the first article which is actually written by a journalist about the work of other scientists. One of the authors in those links you provide is simply known as Dr. Joe with absolutely no other information given about him. Give me a break, who the fuck is Dr. Joe? How am I supposed to find anything about him. Do you know how many Dr. Joe's there must be on google. I might as well say this reply was submitted by Dr. Kia.

"Daz, you are obviously confused about dark energy used in science to describe a force which explains the cause of the expansion of the universe."

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Indeed that is one purpose of it.

And the only one which we can both agree to have credible scientific evidence to support. If you can think of another purpose of dark energy please provide some proof, preferably not of your own since we all saw how shity of a job you've done answering Rust's questions about your version of such a force.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

If you don't know what it explains then how can you say what it is and isn't related to? In fact - if you don't know what it is why are you even commenting on it?

Like I already said, I read all the links you provided and I can safely say that most of it is pseudo-intellectual crap with many different ideas mixed together to make the articles sound cool and interesting with an edge of the occult and mysticism along with a few equations, fancy words, and arbitrary scientific meanings.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Where haven't i been rational?

Man where to start. There are so many irrational statements and answers you made towards Rust's questions but I'm not even going to begin pointing them out since that's between you and him. He can refute your answer's to his questions if he wants to and I'll do the same for my questions to you. I'm not going to argue for somebody else since honestly I don't have the time but maybe on the weekend if he hasn't pointed out some of your mistakes I will.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

what is funny about satanism?

The funny part about satanism is that it's bullshit and mindless teens like you get a kick out of it. If it were truely scientifical there would be textbooks about it and it would be taught in public schools. The irony about it is that some of the stuff I read in those links are related to the things taught in schools but not all of it which when thrown together is like teaching a philosophy class, mixed with a math class, mixed with a elementary physics class, mixed with a linguistics class, mixed with a bullshit class taught to you by the Heavens Gate.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

have you read the links i've posted? do you understand them?

Don't get me started again on the links you've posted. Yes I've read them, and yes I understand most of it. My advice to you is that if you don't think the replies in this thread are based on enough logic and reason and that science is the only way to prove your theory right or wrong rather than debating in a religious forum, then take your idea and proof to the Mad Scientists forum and ask for their honest advice. Don't complain if the majority of them agree Dr. Joe is a crackpot.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Once again - you are commenting on things you either do not know about or are incapable of understanding.

I know enough from what I read to determine that reading it didn't teach me much. I was capable of understanding most of it but I found it not to be of particular interest since a lot of it is probably fictional bullshit mixed with scientific terms made to sound cool and interesting.

Now I'm really fucking tired and need to get some sleep because I have homework that I should've been doing instead of arguing on totse and tomorrow I start my new job at a local pet store.

I will not speak with or against any of the said statements, or in the belief or disbelief of satanism, except for this one, because does not seem to fit:

quote: Kia Kordestani: "The funny part about satanism is that it's bullshit and mindless teens like you get a kick out of it. If it were truely scientifical there would be textbooks about it and it would be taught in public schools."

Politics are a bitch. Now, honestly, how do you think the millions of christians would react to having Satanism taught in schools? Hell, they act bad enough when it comes to science that doesn't conflict with their own dogma. I have seen textbooks written and bullshit teached in schools, or science that was just outdated with new facts. Even if it weren't taught under the name Satanism, someone would make the connection if they ran parrel, and we would be at the same place.

We can't rely solely on the fact that it is not endorsed by the mainstream to prove or disprove it, this is relying off of a group to tell you what is correct and not correct, this is a logical fallacy. It would be much better to attack it from a scienctific angle than that of saying "Well, the group doesn't believe in it, so it can't be true."

Also, to you and rust, the personal attacks were not needed.

[This message has been edited by General Patton (edited 09-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Easy to say it's illogical without saying how or why isn't it? That doesn't achieve anything at all.



Maybe "illogical" wasn't the correct term. Forgive me. Take "unsupported bullshit" in its place.

quote:Think of dark energy as a blanket that covered everything before the existence of the universe - the universe was born within this blanket therefore the universe exists within dark energy. I can not prove this and science can not disprove it, therefore the point is moot and because you rely on the methodology of science alone there is no point discussing this point further.



The point is hardly moot, the point is that what you're claiming is baseless. That poins very well made since you yourself admit that you have no proof of it.

Moreover, the other point is that they are very different things. You're claiming that the universe exists "within" this dark energy, science does not. Another difference to pile up in the humongous pile of differences.

quote:What reason would there be to change from observable to unobservable? Until you can provide a sufficient cause for it to change from 'un-dark' to 'dark' we might as well assume that it has always been unobservable.

It's an useless ajactive seen someone has to be there to experience it in order for it to be "unobservable". If you don't get the hint, unobservable implies an observer.

Like I said, the point was a minor one, you're the one persuing it.

quote:No one ever said that entropy was a "force" as in the 4 forces in physics. Nor did anyone say it was a particle. We said it AFFECTS particles. It DIRECTS the 4 forces. (The 4 forces are Gravity, Electro-magnetism, Weak and Strong - in physics. Weak and strong are primarily "nuclear" or atomic forces.)



Thank you for highlighting another difference. Anymore you want to help me out with? You're doing a fine job by yourself.

quote:There is no contradiction. You seem to have trouble grasping the analogy of gravity; i'll try and make it simpler. Gravity is constantly effecting us. Someone who is not consciously aware of gravity is still effected by it. The dark force is constantly effecting us, someone who is consciously unaware of it is still effected by it. They do not percieve it consciously but it still effects them.

What Im having trouble is with you using terrible words. For example, you said that not all of us "feel" it. That's the problem, what the hell did you mean by "feel".



In any case, you may claim that my penis is not constantly affecting you, but chaos theory says otherwise. I'll stick with chaos theory if you don't mind, it has much more credibility than you do.

----

So now lets re-cap.

The two "similarities" you've found:

1. They are unobservable by the human eye: ("dark").

2. They are "affecting us".



The two are completely and utterly trivial, not to mention completely unsupported; while also having two glaring differences.... and then you wonder why I don't see any similarities?

quote:Maybe "illogical" wasn't the correct term. Forgive me. Take "unsupported bullshit" in its place.

*shrug* perhaps for the moment - perhaps forever.

quote:The point is hardly moot, the point is that what you're claiming is baseless. That poins very well made since you yourself admit that you have no proof of it.

And likewise you can not disprove it considering science knows next to nothing about dark energy; doesn't that make your claims on this point just as baseless as mine?

quote:It's an useless ajactive seen someone has to be there to experience it in order for it to be "unobservable". If you don't get the hint, unobservable implies an observer.

Use a thought experiment; imagine you were there, it would be unobservable to you and therefore 'dark'.

quote:Thank you for highlighting another difference. Anymore you want to help me out with? You're doing a fine job by yourself.

Maybe, once again science doesn't know enough about dark energy atm to confirm or falsify.

quote:What Im having trouble is with you using terrible words. For example, you said that not all of us "feel" it. That's the problem, what the hell did you mean by "feel".

I told you it gets esoteric. Once you are aware of its existence you consciously 'feel' it. At the moment i can think of no other way to describe it. It would be like me asking you what it is like to see green.

quote:The two are completely and utterly trivial, not to mention completely unsupported; while also having two glaring differences.... and then you wonder why I don't see any similarities?

Shrug* i guess we see what we want; that goes for me aswell. I figured it would make more sense for there to be one 'dark force' doing all the jobs than to have two 'dark forces' doing half the jobs each.

Daz/Rust please look at these links. I am but a humble layman, but it sounds related to what you guys are talking about.

Essay covering some philosophy and science, related to what you guys are talking about: http://tinyurl.com/ba8d4

DNA Phantom Effect http://twm.co.nz/DNAPhantom.htm

Local and Non-Local Effects of Coherent Heart Frequencies on Conformational Changes of DNA http://tinyurl.com/8or8b

What are your thoughts opinions on these things?

From The Knowledge Thread: http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum13/HTML/012315.html

[This message has been edited by General Patton (edited 09-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

*shrug* perhaps for the moment - perhaps forever.

Great. Then my comment is a good one, perhaps for now, perhaps forever. Sounds great to me.

quote:And likewise you can not disprove it considering science knows next to nothing about dark energy; doesn't that make your claims on this point just as baseless as mine?

Sorry but I made no claims. I made observations. Those being, that 1, the "similarities" are trivial, and 2, that you haven't supported your allegations.

quote:Use a thought experiment; imagine you were there, it would be unobservable to you and therefore 'dark'.

I can't use a thought experiment because we don't even know what is to be there. You would be arbitrarily deciding what is to be in a place where there is no universe (not to mention that that is illogical in and of itself).

quote:Maybe, once again science doesn't know enough about dark energy atm to confirm or falsify.

Correct. Thus it remains a difference unless proven otherwise, since that's the current position of the scientific community.

quote:Shrug* i guess we see what we want; that goes for me aswell. I figured it would make more sense for there to be one 'dark force' doing all the jobs than to have two 'dark forces' doing half the jobs each.

You're assuming there are two dark forces... in the first place; something you haven't proven at all.

quote:Essay covering some philosophy and science, related to what you guys are talking about: http://tinyurl.com/ba8d4

DNA Phantom Effect http://twm.co.nz/DNAPhantom.htm

Local and Non-Local Effects of Coherent Heart Frequencies on Conformational Changes of DNA http://tinyurl.com/8or8b

Interesting links - good reading.

quote:Sorry but I made no claims. I made observations. Those being, that 1, the "similarities" are trivial, and 2, that you haven't supported your allegations.

These are your claims, whether you call them 'observations' or not...they are specific to you and therefore are your claims.

quote:I can't use a thought experiment because we don't even know what is to be there. You would be arbitrarily deciding what is to be in a place where there is no universe (not to mention that that is illogical in and of itself).

"A thought experiment (from the German term Gedankenexperiment, coined by Ernst Mach) is an attempt to solve a problem using the power of human imagination."

So use your imagination; assume that all there was before the universe came into being was this dark energy/dark force and tell me what it looked like. Could you observe it?

quote:You're assuming there are two dark forces... in the first place; something you haven't proven at all.

There is sciences dark energy and then there is this: http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=10&aid=110

I assumed nothing.

science: term "dark force" arrived at after much scientific enquiry and experimentation and observation

satanism: term "dark force" arrived at after staying awake for a long time and binging on too many psychotropic substances.



ignoring this, topic starter then proceeds to connect these 2 seperate ideas, to try to make them equivalent, however they are not.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

These are your claims, whether you call them 'observations' or not...they are specific to you and therefore are your claims.

They are not claims in that I have no burden to prove them. They are observations that stand because you made claims. If you make a claim and I point out how you haven't supported that claim with evidence, then that isn't a claim, that's an observation.

Regardless. Call it "shitty-tits" or whatever you want to call it, the point was that they are not baseless, because it's completely evident that you didn't back up what you said with evidence.

quote:"A thought experiment (from the German term Gedankenexperiment, coined by Ernst Mach) is an attempt to solve a problem using the power of human imagination."

So use your imagination; assume that all there was before the universe came into being was this dark energy/dark force and tell me what it looked like. Could you observe it?

What part of what I said somehow made you think that I didn't know what a thought experiment was? The part where I also know how it is futile, and worthless, in this case?



quote:

There is sciences dark energy and then there is this: http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=10&aid=110

I assumed nothing.



Did you even read it? Because that pretty much makes my case for me. You assume it exists, since you can't prove it does. Until you prove it exists and that it "transcends nature", then it's an assumption.

quote:Originally posted by General Patton:

Politics are a bitch. Now, honestly, how do you think the millions of christians would react to having Satanism taught in schools? Hell, they act bad enough when it comes to science that doesn't conflict with their own dogma.

The view of christians in this matter should only be based on scientific evidence since the issue at hand has nothing to do with religion or theology. It has to do with linking dark energy to something called satanism. If you read those links that Daz provided it clearly says that their version of satanism is non-theist but rather scientific. Therefor if satanism would be taught in schools the reaction of people should not be based on anything other than scientific evidence to either support or refute the education which wouldn't matter what faith these individuals belong to such as christianity. This is not a matter of their faith.

quote:Originally posted by General Patton:

I have seen textbooks written and bullshit teached in schools, or science that was just outdated with new facts. Even if it weren't taught under the name Satanism, someone would make the connection if they ran parrel, and we would be at the same place.



I think you meant to say that you have seen textbooks written on bullshit that was taught in schools. You should probably mention what kind of school it was that teachs the bullshit from the textbooks you have witnessed and on what subject. If it was a public school on a college level or above and the subject was scientific then the bullshit should have been more thoroughly investigated and examined by the scientific group or board responsible for its legitimacy before being published in the textbook. And even if they did let it slip this just means that we should better judge the source of the material used in education by enforcing better policies that dictate what should be considered scientific text and what should be disregarded such as bullshit like satanism. And thanks to the advantage of private schools this bullshit can still be taught by either satanists or christians or anybody else for that matter for a very expensive price.

As for saying that science has been outdated with new facts, so what? This is inevitable as we are discovering and learning new things all the time and probably will continue to do so until the end of civilization. One must be rational when assuming the validitiy of a theory solely based on the fact that other theories in the past haven't been able to be proven until recently. Perhaps some of these theories might be possible but they must at least have a degree of evidence to support themselves based on the information from the past developed into what we know today which can then be used to hypothesize a prediction of reasons why we currently cannot establish such theories as fact yet. This would only pave the way to further understand the theories which might then be able to be proven in the future should we have a reasonable explanation why it is not possible to validate them in the present. And so far nothing that Daz has mentioned explains why the theories of satanism cannot be proven today by any degree of evidence except for further bullshit claims such as saying the subject is esoteric.

I cannot make proper sense of the second sentence very well. What are you trying to say here? If Satanism was taught under a different name somebody would make a connection to what? the term Satanism? if they ran parallel?, if thats the word you're meaning? which would bring us back to what same place? It's hard to understand your point here since the sentence is written poorly. Maybe if you rephrase it to make sense I can address it properly.

quote:Originally posted by General Patton:

We can't rely solely on the fact that it is not endorsed by the mainstream to prove or disprove it, this is relying off of a group to tell you what is correct and not correct, this is a logical fallacy. It would be much better to attack it from a scienctific angle than that of saying "Well, the group doesn't believe in it, so it can't be true."

I agree with you that saying something is invalid simply because it isn't endorsed or adopted by the mainstream would be a logical fallacy. But in order for a subject to be considered legitimate it must be well established and supported by qualified individuals especially if the subject is going to be scientific. There is no qualified or reputable individual in the mainstream or not that supports the bullshit of the topic in this thread which would be satanism. Show me one textbook about the subject of satanism. Show me one school, public or private, on any level, that has a course in satanism. Surely a textbook or course in satanism wouldn't be considered mainstream. As I said before, "If it were truely scientifical there would be textbooks about it and it would be taught in public schools." Satanism is simply non-scientifical, mainstream or not.

Anyways if by any chance somebody can find me a course or textbook about satanism please also show the credentials of the teacher or author to prove their integrity. Those links to the articles that Daz gave are written by authors who have no credentials at all. If somebody is trying to prove his or her theory outside the mainstream it would require them to have all the more credibility and qualifications compared to those already known to the general public. And like I have already said, there is no qualified or reputable individual that can support the ideas of this version of satanism.

[This message has been edited by Kia Kordestani (edited 09-30-2005).]