Hubble Telescope Finds Deity

[Letum]

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14573-galactic-spaghetti-monster-powered-by-magnetic-fields.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

The deity in question is the flying spaghetti monster which has it's noodley
appendages held aloft via the gravity of a black hole and it's own magnetic field.

Hubble's photographs prove beyond any doubt the existence of the FSM.

Hubble is yet to take any pictures of any other gods. Including the Christian god.

[Platapus]

There you go. FSM is the answer.

Gonna be some explainin going around on this. :up:

[Digital_Trucker]

Hubble is yet to take any pictures of any other gods. Including the Christian god.

They're looking in the wrong place.:p

[Letum]

Hubble is yet to take any pictures of any other gods. Including the Christian god.
They're looking in the wrong place.


Well, even Hubble can't see beyond reality.

I rather suspect that if a god was found in space he/she/it would go the same way as King Kong. Put in a cage and shipped to New York. :hmm:

[Digital_Trucker]

Well, even Hubble can't see beyond reality.

I rather suspect that if a god was found in space he/she/it would go the same way as King Kong. Put in a cage and shipped to New York. :hmm:
Who is to define reality? It wasn't that long ago that reality was the Sun revolving around a flat earth:rotfl:

I can totally agree on the second point. Anything mysterious has to be captured and scientifically "analyzed".

[SUBMAN1]

Yes, Hubble must be upgraded to see interdimensional.

If you were to put mans knowledge on a scale with 100,000,000,000,000,000 dots representing all of knowledge, we are still at number 1.

Don't worry though. It won't be long till you meet Satan. CERN will find him.

-S

[Letum]

Who is to define reality? It wasn't that long ago that reality was the Sun revolving around a flat earth.
Nah, I don't think that can ever be rightly counted as having been part of reality
and I don't mean in an ontological sense.
For us to count something as reality we must have it as knowledge. For it to be this
we must believe it and be justified in our belief.
Whilst geo-centralism was believed by many for a long time, I don't think that belief
was justified enough to count as knowledge of reality.



[something about satan and CERN?!]


WHAT?!

[baggygreen]

what what??

subman is very anti-cern, as am i. i suspect theres very little to worry about, but recreating something that brought everything into being just doesn't sound like a good idea to me.... "contained" or not.

[SUBMAN1]

what what??

subman is very anti-cern, as am i. i suspect theres very little to worry about, but recreating something that brought everything into being just doesn't sound like a good idea to me.... "contained" or not.
I love the idea of CERN - so that is not true. Problem is, with the good, you will find bad. You can never stop the progression of technology however because some bad will come out of the good unless it is immoral for some reason.

Are you going to stop CERN because you will have access to anti-matter? Be able to rip open space time? Create anti-matter bombs that will make nukes look liek play toys? Create magnetically suspended singularities? No! You must continue on. Without continuing on, man kind is at its end. Man was created to learn. Learn is what man must do.

-S

[Digital_Trucker]

Today's "knowledge" is tomorrows fallacy. We think we "know" many things for a fact, but in fact we know practically nothing (good analogy SUBMAN1, but there were probably a few zeros and commas missing from that big number:yep:). There is no reality, there is only what we believe to be reality.

Edit : Once again, I type too slow.:lol:

[nikimcbee]

Don't worry though. It won't be long till you meet Satan. CERN will find him.

-S

Is this CERN thing going to be at the DNC convention?:rotfl:

d'uh
\http://jamessabata.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/hillary.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Don't worry though. It won't be long till you meet Satan. CERN will find him.

-S
Is this CERN thing going to be at the DNC convention?:rotfl:

d'uh
\http://jamessabata.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/hillary.jpgI could only wish that a singularity were accidently dropped on this convention.

-S

[Letum]

We certainly march ever further away from ignorance. (some of us anyway.)

[Letum]

Today's "knowledge" is tomorrows fallacy. We think we "know" many things for a fact, but in fact we know practically nothing (good analogy SUBMAN1, but there were probably a few zeros and commas missing from that big number:yep:). There is no reality, there is only what we believe to be reality.

Edit : Once again, I type too slow.:lol:

Belief is no guarantee of truth, unlike solid and rational justification of belief.

[Digital_Trucker]

Belief is no guarantee of truth, unlike solid and rational justification of belief.
My point was not to infer that belief = truth = reality. My point is also just as irrelevant as any attempt at "solid and rational justification" of anything without all the facts (which we will certainly never attain).

[SUBMAN1]

Belief is no guarantee of truth, unlike solid and rational justification of belief.
My point was not to infer that belief = truth = reality. My point is also just as irrelevant as any attempt at "solid and rational justification" of anything without all the facts (which we will certainly never attain).

Ouch! That was a good one! :up::up::up:

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

[Letum]

Belief is no guarantee of truth, unlike solid and rational justification of belief.
My point was not to infer that belief = truth = reality. My point is also just as irrelevant as any attempt at "solid and rational justification" of anything without all the facts (which we will certainly never attain).
Well, this:

It wasn't that long ago that reality was the Sun revolving around a flat earth. Did seam to infer that you considered reality and belief to be the same thing, but I shall put that down to a mix up of words/meanings if that is not what you meant.


I agree that we can have no direct experience of external reality and any
knowledge about an external, non-phenomenal/non-nominal reality requires a
blind acceptance of several axioms needed to provide a foundation for any other
useful "facts". I would also agree with you if you put it to me that many of the
axioms that are taken most for granted (i.e. that our senses are effected by
an ontological world or that space exists in three or more dimensions) are
arbitrary and no more than beliefs as is anything that is built upon them as you
pointed out.
However, I claim there is one foundation we must take as given; our rationality:
our ability to process information in a way that corresponds to reality to some
extent. Of course, you could deny that we can take our rationality for granted or
claim that it has no correspondence to reality, but to do so with a rational
argument would be more than a little ironic, if not paradoxical.
Given that we posses rationality and can apply it to our arbitrary or
hypothesizes, we are able to determine which of those beliefs is most rational
and therefore which corresponds best to reality. In this way our undeniable
rationality gives more (although not, I concede, perhaps total) justification for
the beliefs we hold wich stand up to it.

[Platapus]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

Where did you find that graphic? I have a co-worker who would love that on her desk

[SS107.9MHz]

:eek::eek:FOOLS!!! It is the Great Old One Cthulhu!!! He lives in the depths of his dark spaghetti lair beneath the dark stars!!!:eek::eek: Believe in Him and surrender to a squishy spaggetti-tentacled death!!!!:D

[Dowly]

:eek::eek:FOOLS!!! It is the Great Old One Cthulhu!!! He lives in the depths of his dark spaghetti lair beneath the dark stars!!!:eek::eek: Believe in Him and surrender to a squishy spaggetti-tentacled death!!!!:D

IA! IA! CTHULHU F'THAGN! :rotfl:

[Rhodes]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Welcome abord SS107.9Mhz!

[Digital_Trucker]

I agree that we can have no direct experience of external reality and any
knowledge about an external, non-phenomenal/non-nominal reality requires a
blind acceptance of several axioms needed to provide a foundation for any other
useful "facts". I would also agree with you if you put it to me that many of the
axioms that are taken most for granted (i.e. that our senses are effected by
an ontological world or that space exists in three or more dimensions) are
arbitrary and no more than beliefs as is anything that is built upon them as you
pointed out.
However, I claim there is one foundation we must take as given; our rationality:
our ability to process information in a way that corresponds to reality to some
extent. Of course, you could deny that we can take our rationality for granted or
claim that it has no correspondence to reality, but to do so with a rational
argument would be more than a little ironic, if not paradoxical.
Given that we posses rationality and can apply it to our arbitrary or
hypothesizes, we are able to determine which of those beliefs is most rational
and therefore which corresponds best to reality. In this way our undeniable
rationality gives more (although not, I concede, perhaps total) justification for
the beliefs we hold wich stand up to it.
A good "logical" and "rational" explanation. I would propose however that to use rationality and logic to prove rationality and logic is, well, irrational and illogical.:D

Just kidding, this discussion could go on forever and all we would do is to speak in circles. You're certainly entitled to your opinion/faith (or lack thereof) as am I.

And a hearty welcome aboard to Great Old One Cthulhu:arrgh!:

[StdDev]

And a hearty welcome aboard to Great Old One Cthulhu:arrgh!:

I think I went to highschool with him....

[Letum]

I would propose however that to use rationality and logic to prove rationality and logic is, well, irrational and illogical.:D
Hehe, thats certainly got a ring of truth to it. However I only try to say that it does
not make sense to deny our rationality. Not to deny some thing is certainly not to
prove it.

Hows that for a paradox? ;)

[FSM Fresco]
Where did you find that graphic? I have a co-worker who would love that on her desk

Google is your friend. (http://images.google.co.uk/images?imgsz=huge&um=1&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK274&q=flying+spaghetti+monster&revid=674696817&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=1)

[SS107.9MHz]

Well, since the whole religious/metaphysical discussion has grown cold, how about a serious (not intending the previous discussion wasn't!) debate about what the hell this article means!
The other day I was watchingin a doc on TV , and at one point they said that even though black holes devoured all matter, simultaneously they we're "ejecting" subatomic particles, although very slowly, thus losing some of it's mass... Is it the same phenomenon here?

[SS107.9MHz]

Oh and unfortunately turns out FSM wasn't the one in the foto, since is in germany visiting some relatives www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg

[Letum]

Well, since the whole religious/metaphysical discussion has grown cold, how about a serious (not intending the previous discussion wasn't!) debate about what the hell this article means!
The other day I was watchingin a doc on TV , and at one point they said that even though black holes devoured all matter, simultaneously they we're "ejecting" subatomic particles, although very slowly, thus losing some of it's mass... Is it the same phenomenon here?

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here, but I will take a guess...
Black holes do eject gravitons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton) (if they exist; we are waiting on the LHC for that
one), but gravitons must be massless to fit in to our theories so far.
Perhaps I am off track there and thee is another ejection, although I don't see how
anything of mass can escape the >0 mass event horizon.

But that is not what is happening in the formation mentioned in the article.

In the article there is a black hole surrounded by a dense cloud of gas. As the
hole sucks in the gas it excites pockets of particles like bubbles of steam in a
boiling kettle. Because the excited pockets are less dense than the surrounding
gas cloud they move away from the black hole. They can move away from the
hole because they are no where near their event horizon(s).
As they rush away from the hole they leave a trail of gas in their wake. These
thin trails would normally diffuse into the surrounding gas and space as they
moved back towards the hole, however they are held in place by a weak
magnetic field as it takes more energy for the charged particles in the gas
strands to move through changes in a magnetic field than it does for them to
move through space with out a magnetic field.

*edit* Err....I'm just repeating the article in the way I find easiest to understand here.

[SS107.9MHz]

Okay, thank you Letum, I should've read the article more thouroughly, I was actually thinking about Hawking's radiation (the whole thing about subatomic particles ejecting from the blackhole itself, until it actually evaporates or "uncolapses" itself eventually), and it seems the article was talking about matter ejected in the regions adjacent to the black hole (in't that also refered to cosmic dragon or something of sorts?), not on the event horizon itself... So what we have here is a tenuous magnetic field isolating these filaments of cooled down matter (gas) from the accelarated heated cluster gas... but shouldn't the stringss actually be denser than their cluster gas counterpart?

[Stealth Hunter]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

Where did you find that graphic? I have a co-worker who would love that on her desk

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Stealth Hunter]

Yeah, I must agree with SS107. We need to keep Cthulhu...

http://deadcantrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/cthulhu_big.jpg

And Yog-Sothoth (whose name can revive the dead):

http://images.epilogue.net/users/megaflow/yog-sothoth.jpg

And Father Dagon and Mother Hydra:

http://paratime.ca/v_and_v/pics/deepone.jpg

And of course, the Shoggoths:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Shoggoth_by_pahko.jpg/678px-Shoggoth_by_pahko.jpg

And finally, the Yithians:

http://members.shaw.ca/csstrowbridge/Tulzscha/Yithian.jpg

Ya na kadishtu nilgh'ri stell'bsna Nyogtha,
K'yarnak phlegethor l'ebumna syha'h n'ghft,
Ya hai kadishtu ep r'luh-eeh Nyogtha eeh,
S'uhn-ngh athg li'hee orr'e syha'h. Ia Cthulhu F'htagn!
Ia Cthulhu F'htagn!
Ia Cthulhu F'htagn!
Ia Cthulhu F'htagn!
Ia Cthulhu F'htagn! Phnglui Mglwnafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah Nagl F'htagn! Na'ghimgor thdid lym.
Myn th'x barsoom lu'gndar.
In'path gix mth'nabor.
In'path nox vel'dekk.
Yig sudeth M'cylorum.
M'xxlit kraddath Soggoth im'betnk.
Nog s'dath blexmed! Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! Y'AI'NG'NGAHYOG-SOTHOTHH'EE-L'GEB F'AI TRHODOG UAAAAH

[SS107.9MHz]

I havn't seen those guys since last family reunion! oh memores memories....:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[SS107.9MHz]

Hey Stealth Hunter, where did you get that Shoggoths pick?

[Fish]

We are on the brink of new discoveries.
Hubble gets an overhaul, and then comes this:

http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin128/bul128b_crone.pdf

Can't wait.:rock:

[antikristuseke]

It wasn't that long ago that reality was the Sun revolving around a flat earth.

read this http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

[Digital_Trucker]

It wasn't that long ago that reality was the Sun revolving around a flat earth.

read this http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Interesting propositions, for sure. Surely we are moving forwards in our knowledge. But where are we on the scale? How far are we from being correct? We don't know the answers to those questions because we can't even fathom the scale. Using the shape of the earth was a bad example, granted. Perhaps I should have used our knowledge of the Universe or our knowledge of the workings of our own bodies.

[Stealth Hunter]

Hey Stealth Hunter, where did you get that Shoggoths pick?

Google'd "Shoggoth".

You might also want to check out the musical "A Shoggoth on the Roof":

http://www.cthulhulives.org/shoggoth/

http://www.cthulhulives.org/shoggoth/ShoggothPoster.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

All I can say to many of those that have posted. One game:

Eternal Darkness

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/Eternal_Darkness_box.jpg

This game was less about shock horror, and more about Universal doom. You have the ability to stop it, but since it is multi-dimensional, you had to play it 4 times to truly beat it! :p:D

Intermediate on the action side, but very high on the emotional side this game was! You must stop the Cthulhu.

-S

[headcase]

No It can't be true! Does this mean that the Great Keg in the Sky isn't a real God? What about the Vast Heavenly Still?

[antikristuseke]

My money is on the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.epsilonprogram.com/

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Rhodes]

http://www.epsilonprogram.com/

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


My favorites are number 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12! Ahahahahah:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

KIFFLOM - HAPPINESS IS YOURS! KIFFLOM my brothers...:rotfl: