"Our findings offer a very compelling case for a potentially habitable planet," said Steven Vogt, an astronomer at UCSC.
"The fact that we were able to detect this planet so quickly and so nearby tells us that planets like this must be really common."
"We're at exactly that threshold now with finding habitable planets," said Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution, a co-author of the study.
Dr Vogt agreed: "The number of systems with potentially habitable planets is probably on the order of 10 or 20%, and when you multiply that by the hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way, that's a large number," he said.
"There could be tens of billions of these systems in our galaxy."
'100 percent' chance for life on newly found planet?
"The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent," Steven Vogt, a UC professor of astronomy and astrophysics says. "I have almost no doubt about it."
Dr. Elizabeth Cunningham, planetarium astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, says the discovery is a huge deal.
Astronomers are excited this new planet was discovered so fast and relatively close by.
"I'm surprised we found one so fast," Cunningham said. "The implication is either we were very lucky or these planets could be relatively common."
Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have a new book coming out on September 7, 2010, entitledThe Grand Design.
This short article addresses some of the issues thus far identified in Hawking and Mlodinow's new book. For a more detailed discussion of these issues, please see the following article:"A Hypothesis Favoring the Existence of a Creator."
Below are quotes taken from two reviews of The Grand Design.
1. From a review by James Trefil in the Washington Post:
[T]he way theories about quantum mechanics and relativity came together to shape our understanding of how our universe (and possibly others) formed out of nothing. Our current best description of the physics of this event, they explain, is the so-called "M-theories," which predict that there is not a single universe (the one we live in) but a huge number of universes. In other words, not only is the Earth just one of several planets in our solar system and the Milky Way one of billions of galaxies, but our known universe itself is just one among uncounted billions of universes. It's a startling replay of the Copernican Revolution.
The conclusions that follow are groundbreaking. Of all the possible universes, some must have laws that allow the appearance of life. The fact that we are here already tells us that we are in that corner of the multiverse. In this way, all origin questions are answered by pointing to the huge number of possible universes and saying that some of them have the properties that allow the existence of life, just by chance.
2.From a review by Michael Moorcock in the Los Angeles Times:
Robert Oppenheimer was fond of proposing that physics and poetry were becoming indistinguishable. In "The Grand Design," Cambridge theorist Stephen Hawking and Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow seem to suggest that physics and metaphysics are also growing closer. They point out that the unified field theory that physicists, including Einstein, spent the better part of the 20th century trying to construct, probably can't exist. Models of the universe are changing radically. We now live in a world in which many physicists have come to believe there are not merely three dimensions (plus time) but 10 or possibly 11.
Our scientific thinking has always tended to reflect its era. Some believe this is because we need a model or an idea emerging from our social and intellectual environment before we set about seeking the appropriate evidence. Science fiction, for instance, quite frequently "seeds" a notion into the scientific community before a physicist does the math and provides the evidence, though certain ideas, if born outside their time, might wait centuries before they are recognized.
In all fairness, The Grand Design must of course first be read in its entirety before any definitive conclusions regarding its merits can be reached. Nevertheless, based upon the above two book reviews, as well as various news articles discussing The Grand Design, it seems that the book does not prove that the universe did indeed create itself by a process of "spontaneous generation." If Hawking and Mlodinow are attempting to dispense with the need for a prior intelligence in explaining the emergence and expansion of the visible universe by citing gravity and the laws of nature, their attempt does not seem dispositive: see, for example, the following article:Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory:
On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
Furthermore, please consider the following recent article by John Gribbin, entitled Are we living in a designer universe? Below are excerpts from this article:
The argument over whether the universe has a creator, and who that might be, is among the oldest in human history. But amid the raging arguments between believers and sceptics, one possibility has been almost ignored – the idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today ...
The big question is whether that has already happened – is our universe a designer universe? By this, I do not mean a God figure, an "intelligent designer" monitoring and shaping all aspects of life. Evolution by natural selection, and all the other processes that produced our planet and the life on it, are sufficient to explain how we got to be the way we are, given the laws of physics that operate in our universe.
However, there is still scope for an intelligent designer of universes as a whole. Modern physics suggests that our universe is one of many, part of a "multiverse" where different regions of space and time may have different properties (the strength of gravity may be stronger in some and weaker in others). If our universe was made by a technologically advanced civilisation in another part of the multiverse, the designer may have been responsible for the Big Bang, but nothing more ...
This might sound far-fetched, but the startling thing about this theory is how likely it is to happen – and to have happened already. All that is required is that evolution occurs naturally in the multiverse until, in at least one universe, intelligence reaches roughly our level. From that seed point, intelligent designers create enough universes suitable for evolution, which bud off their own universes, that universes like our own (in other words, suitable for intelligent life) proliferate rapidly, with "unintelligent" universes coming to represent a tiny fraction of the whole multiverse. It therefore becomes overwhelmingly likely that any given universe, our own included, would be designed rather than "natural".
The entire article can be foundhere.Another, related article by John Gribbin can be found here:
It looks like the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. But could they both be right? Is it possible that there was a creator, but that the creator did not correspond to the Church's idea of God? I believe that the same scientific ideas on which Hawking bases his claim make for a compelling argument that this is indeed the case, although that may not please either side in the debate.
If Hawking and Mlodinow are applying the Copernican revolution to the cosmos and, by so doing, inferring the relative cosmic insignificance of life/sentience/consciousness, one cogent response is that given by Astronomer Dimitar Sasselov in his lecture, which can be viewedhere:
But there is something more profound here, something deeper, and that deeper underlying point is that science is in the process of redefining life as we know it, and that is going to change our worldview in a profound way; not in a dissimilar way as 400 hundred years ago, Copernicus’ act did, by changing the way we view space and time. Now it’s about something else, but it’s equally profound … What if that Copernican insignificance [i.e., the Earth as an insignificant grain of "cosmic sand"] was actually all wrong?
Think about those oldest living things on Earth, but in a cosmic proportion: this is not insignificant; this is very significant. So life might be insignificant in size, but it is not insignificant in time. Life and the universe compare to each other like a child and a parent – parent and offspring. So what does this tell us? This tells us that that insignificance paradigm that we somehow got to learn from the Copernican principle – it’s all wrong. There is an immense, powerful potential in life in this universe, especially now that we know that places like the Earth are common. And that potential, that powerful potential, it is also our potential – of you and me. And if we are to be stewards of our planet Earth and of its biosphere, we’d better understand the cosmic significance – and do something about it.
As a further response to Hawking and Mlodinow, it is necessary to point out that the multiverse hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis: it is not established as a theory, much less as a law. Furthermore, the multiverse hypothesis (in all its theoretical permutations) does not prove the non-existence of a cosmic prior intelligence, because the multiverse hypothesis has three flaws: (1) it is not falsifiable, (2) it begs the question, and (3) it violates Occam's razor.Additionally, even if there is a multiverse, we can never know if we're "microorganisms" - or if our universe is a "microorganism" - existing within a "super-organism" multiverse, or if life is teleologically intended to seed the other constituent universes composing the multiverse, or if the other constituent universes composing themultiversearen't already themselves too teeming with life processes. The multiverse hypothesis merely raises the entire issue to a higher level of abstraction; it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to answer the ultimate questions raised through rational inquiry into the nature and origin of reality.Furthermore, assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a multiverseand that our universe either came into being via a process of "spontaneous generation" or was designed (as Gribbin maintains) via the Big Bang, by beings with minds similar to ours - the question still remains as to who/what first set the entire process in motion.
In a video that can be viewed here, mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose sets forth the following argument regarding the emergence and expansion of the visible universe:
"There's got to be fine-tuning. This is fine-tuning. This is incredible precision in the organization of the initial universe."
None of the above-cited thinkers seem to give credence to or even seriously discuss the teleology of Plato and Aristotle; the relatively simple and seamless answer to all of the above intellectual agonizing is that the Big Bang was actually a Big Seed - an autotelic cosmic seed.It is respectfully submitted that Gould's concept of religion and science as "nonoverlapping magesteria" is a fallacious paradigm: reality is an integrated, holonic totality; science, philosophy, and religion compartmentalize reality and therefore each views reality from its own perspective - and each is tempted to mistake its own limited perspective as embodying the true, complete understanding of reality. To a significant extent, however, reality is analogous to a Gestalt image: the viewer sees what he chooses to see.
The Big Seed paradigm leads to insights that Hawking and Mlodinow do not seem to consider:
there is a Creator, but we do not know the identity of the Creator
the Creator - however conceptualized - is best perceived as a spiritual gardener
Nature, from the very small to the very large, is permeated by essences and holonic teleology
a "vital force" - what Sir Roger Penrose identifies as the incredible degree of "fine-tuning" present within the Big Bang - permeates the cosmos and teleologically brought about the organization of the solar systems and galaxies within the universe, as well as the organization found with DNA and RNA, the laws and forces of nature, atoms, physics and chemistry, etc.
matter evolves to Spirit via evolution
evolution is correct, scientific, and undeniable; evolutionism is, on the other hand, merely metaphysical nihilism.
the emergence of life/consciousness/sentience from an atom-like singularity, the exquisite balancing of the forces, laws, and substances of Nature required to induce said emergence, as well as the progression of the cosmos from a seed-like, minuscule singularity to today's visible universe - self-evidently support the above positions
Additional perspectives regarding The Grand Design can be found here,here,here, and here.
Please closely examine the punctuation mark (period) at the end of this sentence.The entire visible universe - the laws and forces of nature, the galaxies, the solar systems, the planets, the stardust that composes our bodies, literally everything we sense within and without ourselves, the reality in which we are both immersed in and permeated by - emerged and expanded from a point smaller in size than that of a punctuation mark period. At this point in history, given the current limitations on our ability to perceive and comprehend the cosmos, it would seem that Hawking can no more definitively prove that there is not a prior creative intelligence behind the emergence and expansion of the visible universe, than it can be definitively proven that there isa prior creative intelligence behind the emergence and expansion of the visible universe. In conclusion - and nevertheless - it is respectfully submitted to the reader that a better hypothesis is one favoring the existence of a Creator.
**********
Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
The argument over whether the universe has a creator, and who that might be, is among the oldest in human history. But amid the raging arguments between believers and sceptics, one possibility has been almost ignored – the idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today ...
The big question is whether that has already happened – is our universe a designer universe? By this, I do not mean a God figure, an "intelligent designer" monitoring and shaping all aspects of life. Evolution by natural selection, and all the other processes that produced our planet and the life on it, are sufficient to explain how we got to be the way we are, given the laws of physics that operate in our universe.
However, there is still scope for an intelligent designer of universes as a whole. Modern physics suggests that our universe is one of many, part of a "multiverse" where different regions of space and time may have different properties (the strength of gravity may be stronger in some and weaker in others). If our universe was made by a technologically advanced civilisation in another part of the multiverse, the designer may have been responsible for the Big Bang, but nothing more ...
This might sound far-fetched, but the startling thing about this theory is how likely it is to happen – and to have happened already. All that is required is that evolution occurs naturally in the multiverse until, in at least one universe, intelligence reaches roughly our level. From that seed point, intelligent designers create enough universes suitable for evolution, which bud off their own universes, that universes like our own (in other words, suitable for intelligent life) proliferate rapidly, with "unintelligent" universes coming to represent a tiny fraction of the whole multiverse. It therefore becomes overwhelmingly likely that any given universe, our own included, would be designed rather than "natural".
Science, philosophy, and religion are going to converge directly on aspects of the Transudationist paradigm:
the "Big Bang" was in actuality a "Big Seed"
there is a Creator, but we do not know the identity of the Creator
Nature, from the very small to the very large, is permeated by essences and holonic teleology
matter evolves to Spirit via evolution
evolution is correct, scientific, and undeniable; evolutionism is, on the other hand, merely metaphysical nihilism: the emergence of life/consciousness/sentience from the void, the exquisite balancing of the forces, laws, and substances of Nature required to induce said emergence, as well as the progression of the cosmos from a seed-like, minuscule singularity to today's visible universe - self-evidently support this assertion
the multiverse hypothesis (in all its theoretical permutations) does not refute the above assertions, because the multiverse hypothesis has three fatal flaws: (1) it is not falsifiable, (2) it begs the question, and (3) it violates Occam's razor. Furthermore, even if there is a multiverse, we can never know if we're "microorganisms" - or if our universe is a "microorganism" - existing within a "super-organism" multiverse, or if life is teleologically intended to seed the other constituent universes composing the multiverse, or if the other consitutent universes composing the multiverse aren't already themselves too teeming with life processes. The multiverse hypothesis merely raises the entire issue to a higher level of abstraction; it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to answer the ultimate questions raised through rational inquiry into the nature and origin of reality
Lastly, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the author of the above-cited article is correct - i.e., that there is a multiverse and that our universe was designed, via the Big Bang, by beings with minds similar to ours - the question still remains as to who/what first set the entire process in motion
***********
Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution. He imagined a world in which organisms battled for supremacy and only the fittest survived.
But new research identifies the availability of "living space", rather than competition, as being of key importance for evolution. Findings question the old adage of "nature red in tooth and claw". The study conducted by PhD student Sarda Sahney and colleagues at the University of Bristol is published in Biology Letters. The research team used fossils to study evolutionary patterns over 400 million years of history.
Focusing on land animals - amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds - the scientists showed that the amount of biodiversity closely matched the availability of "living space" through time.Living space - more formally known as the "ecological niche concept" by biologists - refers to the particular requirements of an organism to thrive. It includes factors like the availability of food and a favourable habitat.
'Lucky break'
The new study proposes that really big evolutionary changes happen when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by other animals. For example, when birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst. Similarly, the extinction of the dinosaurs left areas of living space wide open, giving mammals their lucky break. This concept challenges the idea that intense competition for resources in overcrowded habitats is the major driving force of evolution.
Professor Mike Benton, a co-author on the study, explained that "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution".
In his latest column, entitled "Dates That Destroyed America," Dr. Chuck Baldwin discusses "dates that have each inflicted unconstitutional, socialistic, and sometimes even tyrannical action against the States united and have, therefore, contributed to the destruction of a free America."
Dr. Baldwin doesn't see fit to list the 1964 "Civil Rights" Act and the 1965 Immigration "Reform" Act - the two pieces of legislation that have in large part destroyed the Jeffersonian White confederated/constitutional Republic and have eviscerated the American White middleclass: the two pieces of legislation that will, in time, result in the subordination and elimination of Whites and Western Civilization from the North American continent; the ongoing demographic transition, the continuing concentration of power into the hands of the federal government, and the growing domination of the federal government by segments of the population brought into America by the 1965 Immigration "Reform" Act and subsequently nurtured and empowered by the 1964 "Civil Rights" Act, are the death knell of the old Republic.
Injustices were committed in the history of the United States, but they could have and should have been remedied humanely and with compassion and sincerity. There was no need to murder the old Republic; the Judeo-plutocracy simply exploited these injustices by using them as ruses to transmogrify America into a cash cow that today exists to serve the agenda of plutocratic powers and world Zionism: open borders, cheap labor, balkanization induced through bogus "diversity" and "multiculturalism," the concentration and centralization of power into a federal Leviathan, the supremacy of global financial interests, and unquestioning and unqualified support for the Zionist entity of Israel - to cite just a few of the Judeo-plutocracy's nation-wreckingmachinations.
As a further response to Dr. Baldwin, below is an article, presented in its entirety, written about eight years ago that discusses some of the impetuses and ramifications of the 1965 Immigration "Reform" Act and that, in so doing, implicitly suggests the real, long-term objectives of the 1964 "Civil Rights" Act:
America's current mass immigration mess is the result of a change in the laws in 1965. Prior to 1965, despite some changes in the 50's, America was a low-immigration country basically living under immigration laws written in 1924. Thanks to low immigration, the swamp of cheap labor was largely drained during this period, America became a fundamentally middle-class society, and our many European ethnic groups were brought together into a common national culture. In some ways, this achievement was so complete that we started to take for granted what we had achieved and forgot why it happened. So in a spasm of sentimentality on the Right and lies on the Left, we opened the borders.
Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group's existing presence in the population. In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism. Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of "racism" and "imperialism," they found the system rhetorically embarrassing. The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack "discrimination," did not reveal the consequences of their convictions. Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking.
Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy assured jittery senators that "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting "the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much." Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.
The 1965 "reform" reoriented policy away from European ethnic groups, yet implemented numbers similar to 1950's rates in an attempt to keep immigration under control. However, members of Congress managed to miss a loophole large enough to allow a 300 percent in immigration, because they did not take into account two "sentimental" provisions. Under the bill, immediate family members of U.S. citizens and political refugees would face no quotas. Their likely impact on the nation was ignored, presumably because aiding families and the dispossessed cast the right emotive glow.
Yet leftists could sound like hard-nosed defenders of the national interest when necessary. In urging passage of the 1965 bill, Senator Robert F. Kennedy wrote in a letter to the New York Times, "The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system." As if merit is the operative principle along the Rio Grande today! Similarly, Representative Robert Sweeney (D-Ohio), insisted the bill was "more beneficial to us." In fact, the 1965 bill made "family reunification" - including extended family members - the key criterion for eligibility. These new citizens may in turn send for their families, creating an endless cycle known to sociologists as the immigration chain. The qualifications of immigrants have predictably fallen. Hispanic immigrants, by far the largest contingent, are eight times more likely than natives to lack a ninth-grade education, and less than half as likely to have a college degree.
The bill did not end discrimination based on what President John F. Kennedy called "the accident of birth." It de facto discriminates in favor of Mexicans and certain other groups.
Not only has the bill failed in its stated purpose, it has realized many of its critics' worst nightmares. Concern mounted that this bill would radically change the ethnic composition of the United States. Such things were still considered legitimate concerns in 1965, in the same Congress that had just passed the key civil rights legislation of the 1960's.
Specific influx predictions that were made seem tragicomic today. Senator Robert Kennedy predicted a total of 5,000 immigrants from India; his successor as attorney general, Nicholas Katzenbach, foresaw a meager 8,000. Actual immigration from India has exceeded by 1,000-times Robert Kennedy's prediction.
Senator Hiram Fong (R-Hawaii), calculated that "the people from [Asia] will never reach 1 percent of the population." Even in 1965, people were willing to admit that we have a reasonable interest in not being inundated by culturally alien foreigners, and it was considered acceptable to say so on the floor of the Senate. Try that today, even as a supposed conservative! (Asians currently account for 3 percent of the population, and will swell to near 10 percent by 2050 if present trends continue.)
The only remaining congressman who had voted on the 1920s quotas, Representative Emanuel Celler (D-New York), insisted, "There will not be, comparatively speaking, many Asians or Africans entering this country." Today, the number of Asians and Africans entering this country each year exceeds the annual average total number of immigrants during the 1960s.
Yet the largest ethnic shift has occurred within the ranks of Hispanics. Despite Robert Kennedy's promise that, "Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total," Mexico sent 20 percent of last year's immigrants. Hispanics have made up nearly half of all immigrants since 1968. After a 30-year experiment with open borders, whites no longer constitute a majority of Californians or residents of New York City.
As immigrants pour in, native Americans feel themselves pushed out. In 1965, Senator Hugh Scott (R-Pennsylvania), opined, "I doubt if this bill will really be the cause of crowding the present Americans out of the 50 states." Yet half-a-million native Californians fled the state in the last decade, while its total population increased by three million, mostly immigrants. This phenomenon also holds true in microcosm. In tiny Ligonier, Indiana, (population 4,357) 914 Hispanics moved in and 216 American-born citizens departed during the 1990s. Hispanics now outnumber the Amish as the area's dominant minority.
Thirty-plus years of immigration at historic levels have also had an economic impact on America. In 1965, Ted Kennedy confidently predicted, "No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge." However, political refugees qualify for public assistance upon setting foot on U.S. soil. The exploding Somali refugee population of Lewiston, Maine, (pop. 36,000) is heavily welfare-dependent. Likewise, 2,900 of Wausau, Wisconsin's 4,200 Hmong refugees receive public assistance. In all, 21 percent of immigrants receive public assistance, whereas 14 percent of natives do so. Immigrants are 50 percent more likely than natives to live in poverty.
Ted Kennedy also claimed the 1965 amendments "will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." Teddy cannot have it both ways: either the immigrant will remain unemployed and become a public charge, or he will take a job that otherwise could have gone to a native American. What is presently undisputed - except by the same economic analysts at Wired magazine and the Wall Street Journal who gave us dot-com stocks - is that immigrant participation lowers wages.
Despite the overwhelming assurances of the bill's supporters, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be "genocidal," a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace. Native citizens take to flight as the neighborhoods around them become dominated at one end of the scale by low-wage immigrants and on the other, by well-heeled businessmen. All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration.
These results were unforeseen by liberals easily misled by good intentions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had labored since 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting family members on non-quota visas. The B'nai B'rith Women and the American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund, among other Jewish organizations, supported this reform legislation while it was yet in subcommittee in the winter of 1965. Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Other organized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefit relatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined the chorus.
Americans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today's population is the result of yesterday's immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers' assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of "prejudice" and "tribalism."
.............................
The factual, reality-based existence of racial classifications has been put to evil ends - but the factual, reality-based existence of racial classifications can also be used to engender a harmonious, beautiful world of true diversity, real brotherhood, and genuine, ecologically sustainable material and spiritual prosperity. No civilization worthy of the name can be built on lies: Have we fallen that far that even this simple truth must be repeated? The global Judeo-plutocracy wants to annihilate the beauty of true human diversity and replace it with homogenized cattle: the Judeo-plutocracy talks about "diversity" and "multiculturalism," but what it really wants are docile wage slaves, obedient serfs, and dumbed-down populations: all with the ultimate objective being the creation of a planet populated by deracinated automatons that can offer no resistance to the Judeo-plutocracy's global agenda of a New World Order - the real "evil Empire." This is the fight that needs to be fought, because it's only by preserving mankinds' diversity that we can ALL save ourselves - our respective pasts, our respective present-days, and our respective futures - and that includes the Jewish People. Treat the label of "anti-Semitism" for exactly what it is: a canard and a smear used by organized Zionists to villainize and discredit those who oppose the Zionist agenda.
Eventually it will become a cold, dead wasteland with a temperature approaching what scientists term "absolute zero".
Professor Priyamvada Natarajan of Yale University, a leading cosmologist and co-author of this study, said that the findings finally proved "exactly what the fate of the Universe will be".
But yet, where there is life, there is hope - and the cosmos is a living organism - or perhaps a living super-organism; life/sentience/consciousness can strive toward and eventually undergo Ascensional Transudation: indeed, the universe was created with this objective in Mind.
“But there is something more profound here, something deeper, and that deeper underlying point is that science is in the process of redefining life as we know it, and that is going to change our worldview in a profound way; not in a dissimilar way as 400 hundred years ago, Copernicus’ act did, by changing the way we view space and time. Now it’s about something else, but it’s equally profound … What if that Copernican insignificance [i.e., the Earth as an insignificant grain of ‘cosmic sand’] was actually all wrong?
“Think about those oldest living things on Earth, but in a cosmic proportion: this is not insignificant; this is very significant. So life might be insignificant in size, but it is not insignificant in time. Life and the universe compare to each other like a child and a parent – parent and offspring. So what does this tell us? This tells us that that insignificance paradigm that we somehow got to learn from the Copernican principle – it’s all wrong. There is an immense, powerful potential in life in this universe, especially now that we know that places like the Earth are common. And that potential, that powerful potential, it is also our potential – of you and me. And if we are to be stewards of our planet Earth and of its biosphere, we’d better understand the cosmic significance – and do something about it.”
Researchers are developing novel computers by mimicking the way that neurons are built and how they talk to each other.
Dr Arnaud Lucotte said the discovery could assist physicists in the hunt for the elusive Higgs boson, or "God particle".
"From the beginning I've seen the genetic code in two ways: as raw material that could be translated into notes, and also as a thing of wonder and a thing of extraordinary beauty; and it was from both points of view that the piece arose," he told BBC News.
This paper deals with the fundamental and challenging question of the ultimate originof geneticinformation from a thermodynamicperspective. The theory of evolution postulates that random mutations and natural selection can increase genetic information over successive generations. It is often argued from an evolutionary perspective that this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because it is proposed that the entropy of a non-isolated system could reduce due to energy input from an outside source, especially the sunwhen considering the earthas a biotic system. By this it is proposed that a particular system can become organised at the expense of an increase in entropy elsewhere. However, whilst this argument works for structures such as snowflakes that are formed by natural forces, it does not work for geneticinformationbecause the information systemis composed of machinerywhich requires precise and non-spontaneousraised free energy levels – and crystals like snowflakes have zero free energy as the phase transition occurs. The functional machineryof biological systems such as DNA,RNA and proteinsrequires that precise, non-spontaneous raised free energies be formed in the molecular bonds which are maintained in a far from equilibrium state. Furthermore, biological structures contain coded instructions which, as is shown in this paper, are not defined by the matter and energyof the molecules carrying this information. Thus, the specified complexity cannot be created by natural forces even in conditions far from equilibrium. The genetic information needed to code for complex structureslike proteins actually requires information which organisesthe natural forces surrounding it and not the other way around – the information is crucially not definedby the material on which it sits. The information system locally requires the free energies of the molecular machineryto be raised in order for the information to be stored. Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamicsshow that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficient argument to explain the origin of either biological machineryor genetic informationthat is inextricably intertwined with it. This paper highlights the distinctive and non-materialnature of informationand its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. (More here)
Microwave signatures point to the birth and death of stars and galaxies, as well as the embers of the "Big Bang" which, according to theory, brought the Universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago.
The information encoded within DNA and RNA, the bio-friendly and finely tuned cosmic laws and forces of nature, and the ensuing emergence of life and sentience and consciousness, support the hypothesis that the Big "Bang" was a seed - the Big "Seed."
Regarding the impetus of the Big Seed, the best explanation that human reason can offer is Aristotle's unmoved mover; the mechanistic, materialistic atheists' multiverse hypothesis is an untestable, question-begging supposition.
"When you are hearing what the sonifications do you really are hearing the data. It's true to the data, and it's telling you something about the data that you couldn't know in any other way," said Archer Endrich, a software engineer working on the project.
"We can hear clear structures in the sound, almost as if they had been composed. They seem to tell a little story all to themselves. They're so dynamic and shifting all the time, it does sound like a lot of the music that you hear in contemporary composition," he explained.
Although the project's aim is to provide particle physicists with a new analysis tool, Archer Endrich believes that it may also enable us to eavesdrop on the harmonious background sound of the Universe.
He said he hoped the particle collisions at Cern would "reveal something new and something important about the nature of the Universe".
And Mr Endrich says that those who have been involved in the project have felt something akin to a religious experience while listening to the sounds.
"You feel closer to the mystery of Nature which I think a lot of scientists do when they get deep into these matters," he said.
"Its so intriguing and there's so much mystery and so much to learn. The deeper you go, the more of a pattern you find and it's fascinating and it's uplifting."
"It is remarkable that the distribution of galaxies on huge scales can tell usabout the mass of the tiny neutrinos."
In light of the above, please consider the following:
Manchester historian deciphers hidden 'Plato Code'
Fascinatingly, it's a musical code," he said. "Plato and the Greeks believed music was the key tomathematics and the cosmos.
"What we didn't know was that he used Greek musical scales to give his works a hidden structure and then built layers of hidden meanings beneath that."
The hidden codes reveal that Plato anticipated the Scientific Revolution 2,000 years before Isaac Newton, discovering its most important idea - the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics.
"In ancient times, many of his followers said his writings were written in symbols; in modern times that was denied," he said.
"So I've rediscovered that the Ancients were correct."
Some of Michelangelo's best known works may bear hidden messages suggesting that the human brain is among God's greatest creations, scientists say:
Neurosurgeons Dr. Rafael Tamargo and Ian Suk of Johns Hopkins University looked closely at Michelangelo's painting "Separation of Light From Darkness," which depicts the beginning of the universe. They found that the neck of God in this painting appears to contain the human brainstem.
"He recognized that the brain was an important structure, and I think he included it in the creation of the universe because he recognized that this is one of the most magnificent things that God had created," Tamargo said.
The brainstem is the most primitive part of the brain, through which all signals traveling to and from the brain must pass, Tamargo said.
In the image above, on the left, you can see a comparison between the neck of God in the painting and a real brain stem. On the right, notice the different angles of light on the figure, which was uncommon for Michelangelo.
It was once thought that the Earth was flat. It was once thought that the Earth was at the center of the solar system. Today it is thought that all of reality is an accident; just as the flat Earth perspective and geocentricism fell, the “all of reality is an accident” paradigm too shall fall.
Dostoevsky remarked that “Beauty will save the world.” Solzhenitsyn wrote:
In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.
The Kairos has come for a Revolution – a scientific, philosophical, and theological Revolution. The shackles of disabling fear and pathological escapism, engendered by two inhuman world wars and decades of living in the shadow of nuclear annihilation, must be jettisoned. This must be done, and it must be done in the name of Life – not hate, not racism, not intolerance, not exclusion. Life, Love, Truth, Goodness, and Beauty: if humanity does not exist to pursue these sublime qualities, then humanity will not exist at all.
Time is very quickly running out, not just for European Descended People, but for ALL of mankind and for ALL life on planet Earth – and the old ways don’t work anymore. Pedantic professors, knuckle dragging reactionaries, posing egomaniacs: these people are fossils; they are on their way out, but yet they still cling to their futile, anachronistic approach. They walk in the footsteps of others rather than blaze a new path because, despite all their posturing, they are essentially cowards: they’d rather feel good about themselves, gather in their futile little cliques, than do what it takes.
All that is necessary to reverse the miasma of defeat and hopelessness is to summon the courage to think: one clear, rational, logical, well-argued thought can reverse the current reality-polarity and allow us to save ourselves:
the Big Bang was a seed
And in the process of saving ourselves, we can do right by all others, including ALL the Peoples of mankind and ALL the animals too. The high road is there, begging to be taken, but the entry toll is the recognition that it’s the 21st century – not the 1800’s.
Please view the below video from the Discovery Channel's new series, entitled “Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking.” If you don’t want to view the entire ten minutes and one second, please at least view the video from the 7:21 point to its conclusion at 10:01.
Life on Earth exists in a state of profound ambiguity: Does existence have meaning or is Reality meaningless? Is everything inside of you and outside of you, from quarks to quasars, all the result of random, accidental happenstance? Is the exquisite, life/Consciousness engendering balancing of the cosmic Forces of Nature a fluke? Could Reality as we perceive it have manifested itself into existence on its own accord, from a singularity or from nothing? The multiverse hypothesis does not resolve the issue, because the multiverse hypothesis is not dispositive: it’s not falsifiable, it violates Occam’s razor, and it begs the question (see, for example, Sir Antony Flew’s There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind). Moreover, even if – and that’s an awfully large if – there is a multiverse, we can never know whether the other universes too are teeming with life processes, and even if there is a multiverse, we’re still faced with the question of what set it in motion, and even if there is a multiverse, how do we know Life was not teleologically intended to seed its other constituent universes too? Furthermore, we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang, and we do not know what, if anything, comes after the heat death of the universe (or, alternatively, what, if anything, comes after the “Big Crunch”). Many of the world’s foremost scientists (cosmologists, physicists, etc.) have proven that the universe-Creation occurred from a singularity or from nothing. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the Big Bang brought forth an integrated, teleological Reality-Totality capable of inducing self-generating and self-replicating sentience and consciousness.
The following three assertions thus follow:
Occam’s razor suggests the following conclusion: the Big Bang was a seed.
The laws of thermodynamics support the following conclusion: this “Big Seed” required prior intelligence.
Therefore, the Big Bang – and the universe and everything transposing it – is the Creation of a previously existing Intelligence: Aristotle’s unmoved Mover, the Mind of God – the Creator.
Unlike the multiverse hypothesis, the Transudationist hypothesis is philosophically, theologically, and scientifically consistent; Transudationism is seamless and does not contradict itself.
The Big Bang was not a random expansion of space-time matter-energy (i.e., it was not an event analogous to a “bomb” “exploding”); rather, it was an ordered expansion of space-time matter-energy (i.e., it was an event analogous to a “seed” “sprouting”): therefore, it did not “explode” – it sprouted. As to who or what “planted” it, I make no hypothesis, other than to endorse the reasonableness of Aristotle’s notion of the unmoved Mover (or God, if you prefer). The theistic-spiritualistic-Transudationist paradigm is just as, if not more, sound than is the atheistic-materialistic-evolutionist paradigm; note please the use of the term evolutionist: evolution is true, scientific, and undeniable. Evolutionism, on the other hand, is the philosophy of nihilism. Transudationism does not deny evolution; Transudationism is, however, the antithesis of evolutionism: evolutionism is nothing more than atheist metaphysics.
Darwin wasn’t wrong; it’s just that he didn’t perceive the larger, all-encompassing order – the layered, nestled, hierarchical space-time matter-energy bioelectrical harmonic webbed nexuses of holonic planes and dimensions – in which the processes of evolution unfold, without which evolution could not engender ever more complex life and Consciousness: but for the Proto-Order embedded in the Big Seed, blind, random evolutionism is absolutely incapable of producing anything other than Chaos. Evolution is a cosmic process initiated by the Force that begot the Big Seed; evolution is most emphatically not an earthbound phenomenon.
Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?
If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.
This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but – upward.
Alexandr SolzhenitsynFrom “A World Split Apart,” delivered at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises, Thursday, June 8, 1978
Additional commentary:
Once the medium of exchange became fungible (e.g., in the form of money), it seems inevitable that economic materialism would embark on a quest to transform the world in its image: humans must become fungible; religion must become universal; everything must succumb to and be subsumed by Mammon – and anything standing in the way of commerce (see, e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court’s bogus invocation of the Commerce Clause to strike down genuine federalism) must be plowed under and remade in the image of a rootless, anomic, race-less (see, e.g., Sarkozy’s recent advocacy of mass miscegenation), and ahistorical consumer society.
Regarding Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, Jefferson’s Enlightenment verbiage has come back to haunt Western man, with a vengeance. It’s a good example of words being redefined, reinterpreted, and couched in an alien context, ultimately ending in the new adaptation of the original words being used as weapons to destroy the very People who birthed the original words. Media are weapons. They are used to alter our People’s perception of reality, to the extent that not only can’t we recognize and act upon our legitimate, vested interests, we can’t so much as assert our own existence as a People; television’s dominant themes are violence, sex (particularly with an increasing preoccupation with miscegenation), conformity, mediocrity, and a mindless, spiritless cult of death: the dumbing-down of the population, the downward spiral of the intellectual capacity of the electorate, and mass non-white immigration. Furthermore, dysfunctional individuals of our own Kind have spilled much of our Blood, ruthlessly murdered so many of our best people – driven at least in part by their adherence to alien belief systems such as “global democracy” and egalitarianism.
The ancient European conception of the sacred and mystical has indeed atrophied, and this process of atrophic decay has been a tragedy for our People: the conception that mankind are composed of tribes and races, within a harmonic, organic, holonic totality, seems to be infinitely preferable to post-modern ennui and soullessness. Abstract concepts can be deadly, particularly if they divorce consciousness from reality. The White West needs a new paradigm, a fresh, life-affirming perspective to perceive the cosmos – i.e., Creation. The old dogmas and blinders must crumble and give way: the White West needs to rethink the meaning of the sacred.
Once the medium of exchange became liberated from use-value, i.e., when the medium of exchange became fungible in the form of money, economic materialism declared war on spirituality, organic life-harmony, and the old values of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. The money-power of economic materialism would, slowly but surely, expand, grow, and consolidate itself. Gradually it would eat away at the organic orders, the aristocratic values, and the supernal systems of thought – the very consciousness – of Western man. Eventually, ideologies such as Darwinism, Marxism, Freudianism, etc., were developed and promoted, and these new "isms," all these new paradigms and worldviews, all seemed somehow to always have as their as their targets the European conception of man as an organic, holonic being. The development of fungible, abstract, detached exchange-value (I have in mind Aristotle's discussion of commodities, money, barter, usury, exchange-value, and use-value) helped to unleash the forces of economic materialism, and as we witness the course of history, we can see an ongoing struggle taking place within Western Civilization, and this titanic clash – which is not yet over – is being waged between Vitalism and Mechanism, between spiritualism and materialism, between particularism and universalism, between soil and profit, between blood and commerce – in short, between Beauty and Mammon. Marxism fetishizes the economic dimension of this struggle and transforms it into the struggle: the struggle to end all struggles. Yet, Marxism is built on lies – lies about everything, from the nature of man to the meaning and purpose of human existence. In this struggle, Mammon-capitalism is allied with radical egalitarianism, i.e., it has institutionalized the lie of human fungibility – and to disagree with totalitarian human fungibility is to be a heretic. The American Civil War, World War I, World War II, the armed conflicts going on in the world – if one looks closely, one can see the hand of Mammon, i.e., of the organized, web-like tentacles of the international Judeo-plutocracy. Step by step, the international Judeo-plutocracy has moved to transform homogeneous, sovereign nation-states into globalized, neo-feudal, balkanized, standing-reserve cash cows to better service the needs and hegemonic objectives of international finance.
Today, materialistic Mammon-capitalism is destroying our planet; indeed, the inner depravity and disharmony of Mammon-capitalism is manifesting itself in the ultimate System crisis: the end of growth, i.e., the point at which the pathologies of Mammon-capitalism – commodification and mass consumption – meet the impermeable wall of reality.
Whites have lost our sense of the sacred. We have been convinced (brainwashed?) that everything we see outside of ourselves, within ourselves, that every thought we have, that every breath we take, is, ultimately, an accident, and that the only hope for salvation is materialistic Mammon-capitalism.
It is time for a Revolution.
I have tried to superimpose, disperse a transcendental aura through Darwinism; you see: instead of perceiving reality as chaotically-enveloped random happenstance stumbling blindly along as a cacophony of random mutation and natural selection, why not at least consider the possibility of perceiving the cosmos as a sentient, organic organism – i.e., as a living entity? Darwin was of course a genius and absolutely correct about his views and hedges concerning his theory of evolution. But none of this – absolutely none of this – precludes from us considering the plausibility that what we’re witnessing, what we’re immersed in and permeated by – is not itself a macroscopic embedment enseamed within a Holonic System that has somehow been designed to evolve.
Please consider the following article: here (a six page review of the book discussed in the article can be found here).
And the only real way to answer the above contention is to claim that there is some kind of a multiverse, which is a weak opponent indeed to immanent cosmic teleology.
The Big Bang was an autotelic cosmic seed, and the universe is an organism for cultivating Consciousness
All living beings belong to the cosmic Brotherhood of Sentience
All life is a form of light, and the cosmos is a holonic Holy Hologram: ALL life is on an evolutionary Journey of Ascensional Transudation – of light to Light!
ALL life – the Creator’s Creation and His creatures – must always be treated with dignity, with respect, and with utmost love
'100 percent' chance for life on newly found planet?
