steljarkos

Validated by whom? Those whose theoretical foundations are being criticized? By your own words, you are proving my point for me. SGR has not been proven conclusively and so the onus is on those promulgating a doubtful conjecture to provide the evidence. And yes, SGR is doubtful, particularly within the context of a broken peer review process as I've introduced in my opening post (Binswanger and Horton). Now you may not think that the SGR conjecture is doubtful, but then, Christian believers also don't think that their God conjecture is doubtful. Such is the nature of faith, and the true believers who follow that faith. Now your dismissal of the reference that I provided as being fringe... here's the situation. ANY outsider daring to challenge The Establishment will be dismissed as fringe. It's a given, it is expected, and it happens every.single.time. Look at the lead-up to the current crisis in the Fake News Network. It's the same dynamic that will eventually come to bear on the Fake Science Network... if not now, then later. Before I can accept SGR, I want to see clear, unambiguous evidence that it works. I don't want to see category errors or other indications that logically incoherent concepts are coming together to explain the unfalsifiable. I'm not happy with SGR's measley 7.5% contribution to Mercury's perihelion shift... a whopping 90% would be more compelling in eliminating my doubt (the seeds of doubt planted by Binswanger and Horton). GPS relativity corrections is now a certified urban legend on a par with feminism's wage gap myth. Red shift is NOT evidence of big bang because tired light has not been disproven. And so on. There was a time that I accepted SGR, because what I now realize, had never occurred to me before. Things began to change once it occurred to me what a load of horse manure the GPS urban legend is... and yet, how often it was trotted out like some kind of gotcha moment for science. If people are going to dismiss every debunking of SGR as fringe, then my challenge is for the SGR true believers to provide GOOD evidence, and not the vague "weight of evidence" that is open to interpretation or concerns about peer-review footsies. Weight-of-evidence can be compelling... but you've got to trust those providing it. Binswanger and Horton have shown us that that level of trust is not warranted. The seeds of my doubt were planted in GPS and the broken peer review process (Binswanger and Horton). And now they are snowballing with the Fake News phenomenon. Why? Because there's another crucial dimension to science... and it is the cultural narratives that inform science. You judge a person by the company they keep. You judge a culture by the bullshit it entertains. Feminism, SJWs, Antifa and fake news carry the same stench and are an expression of the same miasma... my concern is, does this stench extend also to fake science? A broken culture can only ever create broken science, and that's why we need to be careful with the concepts that we take on board. It is on SGR that the onus lies to provide the evidence behind their faith, because it is fundamentally impossible to disprove something that relies on faith.

If my previous, self-explanatory outlines don't do it for you, then my most recent search came across the following reference: http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp But further evidence abounds by just googling [relativity theory debunked]. As in any google search, there will be much rubbish to sift through to find the nuggets, but they're there. And just because mainstream fake-science academia, like mainstream fake-news media, refuses to acknowledge said sleights on their precious reputations as they clutch their pearls, does not mean that these debunkings are without merit.

I liked your previous answer better. You were right about the no-communication theorem that relates to QM, independently of SGR (relativity), and the theorem's premise that quantum entangled states cannot be used as a basis for transmitting information. A decision has to be made between QM vs SGR. It's either one or the other. For me, QM has always been the more compelling theory, with its evidence that is repeatable and irrefutable. SGR is not an option for all the reasons I've already outlined in my previous posts, above. What is time? It is a measure of the progression of events. A ticking clock is one of the means of measuring that progression of events. To conflate this progression of events as a dimension of space-time in which coordinates can be set, and to which you can, in theory, relocate to, is nonsense that is better suited to science fiction than science fact. Once a progression of events has run its course, that's it... you can replicate the method and the formula, but not the moment or the self in that moment. We should spare ourselves the grief of SGR's convoluted, nonsensical rationalizations. No, nobody can go backwards in time to kill your grandparents before your mother was born so that you cannot be born... not even in theory. This stuff is as ridiculous as it sounds. Now irrespective of whether SGR theorists take this nonsense seriously (I know that some of them do, and they agonize over the paradoxes), the conflation of time as a dimension of space-time is in principle a most serious category error. But worst of all, SGR keeps getting in the way, and this distracts smart people in QM, so many of whom reflexively take on board SGR's objections. SGR is a ball-and-chain that is hampering real scientific progress. Let's dump it once and for all. There exists evidence that debunks SGR. But the SGR behemoth of mainstream academia refuses to accept it. And like the fake news of mainstream media, this fake science of mainstream academia is going to require another James O'Keefe to crack it. Cheers

This is an area where there seems to be a lot of confusion, misinformation, and perhaps even just not enough known about it... myself included. However... you can impact on the polarization of photons being transmitted (perhaps equivalent to modifying A, B, C or D?) by using polarization filters. As to the practicalities of entangling said polarized photon with another in the context of instantaneous messaging (typically, a pair of photons created together in a laser are entangled), that's a different matter... there are the practicalities relating to the collapse of the wave function, because once said photon is observed, it ceases to be entangled. More specifically, can you alter a polarization without collapsing the wave function and therefore breaking the entanglement? If you can...(?) These practicalities are significant, and I wouldn't like to conjecture whether there is a practical solution to them. But if we are to be purist about it, my understanding is that you CAN impact on the likelihood of an emitted state of a photon when it passes through your polarization filters, the orientation of which is within your control. Maybe there is no practical solution to the instant communication problem... but changing the narrative from the non-communication absolute to "no practical way of achieving it" places a different slant on how we understand what's going on. What you are suggesting implies something fundamental about the nature of information, whereas I am wondering if our problem is a practical one rather than a theoretical one (my background is in engineering, not physics). And by addressing these two distinctions we might come to a more realistic interpretation of relativity theory, of which there is good reason to be skeptical.

Glad you brought that up. No, I didn't forget... I'm just trying to avoid information overload, as there is much to digest. If there's something that doesn't gel, they invent dark stuff to explain, for example, the fact that there's not enough matter to keep galaxies together. Take the following link, for example, where they spell it out in their opening sentence, "Dark energy and dark matter are theoretical inventions that explain observations we cannot otherwise understand." https://phys.org/news/2017-06-ditch-dark-energy-relativity.html#jCp

Here's a video clip that shines a light on the amazing complexity within a living cell, but there is no indication here of anything even remotely analogous to either a computer or a blueprint. In fact, the inner workings of a cell seem to resemble another ecosystem, much like what we are already familiar with in forests and wildlife, albeit much more cooperative:

The non-communication theorem is an assumption, intended to be self-consistent with the constancy of c assumption. That's all. And around these self-consistent assumptions is built the self-consistent mathematical framework. Do away with the constancy of c assumption, and the non-communication assumption no longer stands. The second postulate is that the speed of light has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference. It may well turn out that this is a quantum-mechanical phenomenon related to quantum tunneling and analogous to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. In this context, a particle's motion through space is not the simple, linear vector as commonly understood in Newtonian physics. Michelson-Morley's famous "failed experiment" has done away with the ether, but relativity theory need not be the only alternative explanation. This QM perspective can factor in the role of the observer - nay, it SHOULD factor in the role of the observer - and an observer travelling at the speed of light will intercept photons in exactly the same manner as if he were stationary... no violation of the second postulate, by any observer at any speed. This is an important possibility that might help explain numerous phenomena, such as the quantum eraser experiment. References to random information, or stochastic correlation, seem generally to be poorly thought through. Think of radio waves and their carrier frequency, to finish up as sound coming out of your radio's loudspeaker. If your "random information" can be made to follow a pattern, then you might still be able to transmit information. Perhaps there is scope for converting random information into some kind of carrier base over which information might be transmitted, much like a radio carrier frequency being used to broadcast sound.

Ah yes, that mantra "human life is precious." I'm no longer sure what that means, when you factor in other parameters. Is human life more precious than, say, a dolphin's life or an elephant's life? To most people the answer is... "obvious". But why? Ok, let's fast-forward to a bigger picture. It is now well established that the universe is comprised of trillions of galaxies: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-reveals-observable-universe-contains-10-times-more-galaxies-than-previously-thought Ummm, that's like about 200 billion stars per average-sized galaxy, or roughly equivalent to the grains of sand in an average-sized bedroom (I performed the calcs some time ago)... per galaxy. Then multiply that by trillions. What proportion of these stars harbor life? My default null hypothesis is that life will always evolve on any planet where the conditions are "right" (whatever that means... I suspect that there are more "right" conditions than we currently assume). And if size or the numbers don't do it for you, then consider the time scales. Humans live for, what... 80 years? To a sky-daddy the size of a galaxy, those 80 years are much less than a blink of His eye. Or as another example... a photon of light moving from one node of its wavelength to the next node, a wavelength away, "experiences" about 10 years of a human's lived life (again, I performed the calcs some time ago... a rough kind of dimensional analysis where I tried to estimate how many years a human would live if they were the size of a photon, during one cycle of its life). So if a human life is so utterly precious, given the size and time scales of an outrageously huge universe... or the ridiculously tiny time scales at the subatomic level... I wonder if we're selling ourselves short with this preciousness of human life thing. What experiences are we denying ourselves in our obsession with the preciousness of our lives? What horrors are we exposing ourselves to in our fixation with saving lives at any cost? Surgery. Extending the lives of people on life support. Etc. So many people begin their careers with high hopes, only to have their lives snuffed out too early, in an instant, due to misfortune. What of the preciousness of their prematurely terminated lives? I'm talking perspective. To my way of thinking, lives lived with some higher ideal to believe in are more precious than those plodding, blue-pill lives grinding away for some banal materialism whose only objective in life is to collect stuff.

I'm in the process of creating a blog. I'll send you the link to it when I'm done, so you can link to it. I respect Einstein's reasoning and follow-through. He was correct to address the issues, like the need to reconcile electromagnetism with the Lorentz transformations. It was good science to do so, given that it's bad science to just accept the status-quo... even though I might now disagree with his conclusions. The problem is with the groupthink and the investment in Einstein that followed in his aftermath. I originally began tackling these folk with great trepidation, as the issues raised are often complex and daunting. There is a great deal to become familiar with, such as Michelson-Morley, the Sanger effect, preserving symmetries, resolving infinities, time dilation, etc, etc. It turns out that while it pays to become familiar with these things so that you don't get intimidated by them, they are largely red herrings. Some of the more compelling refutations don't even make reference to them, and simply point out flaws in the assumptions made by researchers. For example, this one: http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp And the financial and intellectual investments that locked them into a momentum... it will be difficult to change the direction of this tanker. Actually, I've encountered sources suggesting that Einstein had his doubts. But once he became everyone's celebrity darling, it would have been difficult for him to backtrack. I so agree. What's the link to your website?

Like most everyone else in these FDR forums, I'm wholly sick and tired of the Left with their hypocrisies and stupidities and their impact on Stupid Culture. But I'm also sick and tired of what passes for science these days, with the unsubstantiated conjecture that is allowed to enter into scientific discourse. I therefore arrive at my position and the purpose of this post... Stupid Culture can only ever create Stupid Science. Let us take a closer look... based on an an excerpt from a book that I am working on. Concerns about the peer-review process are not new. The crux of these concerns are addressed by the likes of Binswanger (2013) and Horton (2015) (references below). But as we now observe what seems to be the unravelling of the west as we know it, perhaps we should be taking these concerns to a new level. The culture of liberalism, feminism, SJWs, Antifa and the like, with their increasing hostility to freedom of speech, democratic principles and basic commonsense, seems to be pointing to a breakdown that I now fear to be more extensive than previously supposed. Could it be that our culture of Fake News is not confined to media and politics, but is actually an expression of a far wider problem... a mestatized cancer that has affected the whole culture? The symptoms are there, and a flailing peer-review in Academia is one of them. This is a rabbit hole that we need to go down, because science is itself a product of culture. Even the most objective of the sciences relies on cultural narratives to be understood. And if culture is broken, then we have to ask... is science also broken? Now as someone whose university education is solidly grounded in engineering and business, I have no problem with the most mathematical and Newtonian of the STEM disciplines. There is nothing here to intimidate anyone with a solid grounding in the hard sciences or math. TEM (technology, engineering and math) is on rock-solid ground for the most part, and Newton is perhaps the epitomy of good, rigorous science. But the S (science) of STEM is showing some signs of disintegration. There are some branches of S that are just not scienfific at all. Let us take a closer look. BIOLOGY Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is respectable enough, but it is not the whole picture. Darwin himself accounted for the production of variety by way of Lamarckism, not genes. Things take a turn to La-La land in NEO-Darwinism, and the implementation of the infotech narrative in a genocentric paradigm. This infotech-based narrative thrives, despite the following inconsistencies: Absence of a computer technology to process the data. Where is the computer? If someone wants to inculcate others to the notion of genes/DNA as data, then the onus is on them to locate and specify the technology that processes said data. And thus far, no indications of any such technology in biological systems is forthcoming; DNA does not behave in any manner that is consistent with the infotech narrative, and the evidence has started to come in. Notice in the following link (Crew, 2017), the absence of anything resembling a computer or infotech... DNA replication appears to be taking place in a manner never before anticipated: http://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-has-been-filmed-for-the-first-time-and-it-s-stranger-than-we-thought Consider that the Human Genome Project has estimated that there are 20,000 to 25,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome. For comparison, the number of genes in some less "complex" organisms play out as follows (Kimball, 2016): Naegleria gruberi (unicellular amoeba) - 15,727; Fruit fly - 17,000; Humans - 21,000; Caenorhabditis elegans (nematode roundworm) - 21,733; Mouse - 23,000; Pufferfish - 27,918; Picea abies (Norway spruce conifer) - 28,354. Is it conceivable that we humans have been bested by worms, mice, pufferfish and conifers? If we base our reasoning on genetic complexity, then this clearly is not the case; Consider how much information a DNA molecule can contain. The haploid human genome is estimated to be of the order of 3.2 billion bases long. For comparison, the now unremarkable Western Digital external hard drive sitting on my desk comprises 2 terrabytes, or 2,000 billion bytes. And if we interpret our 3.2 billion bases in the context of bytes, then the justification to interpret DNA in the context of the infotech narrative becomes even more preposterous. The four nucleobases that comprise the base-pair building blocks of the DNA molecule are cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine (DNA), abbreviated as C, G, A and T, respectively. There are four base-pair combinations that manifest as the rungs along the length of the DNA spiral, namely, C-G, G-C, A-T, T-A. If we interpret the four base-pairs that are possible as comprising one "byte" of data, then 3.2 billion bases would translate to a measley 800 Mb of data. Will the 800 Mb of data that a DNA molecule might contain, at maximum, be enough to specify a human? Really? A human with cells and neurons and eyes and bones and teeth and skin? Our scientists need to think this through. They need to think more like engineers, and not SJWs being supported by government grants; Genes and DNA are of course, very important... but not in the way that mainstream academia thinks. More importantly, there is no one-to-one correlation of genes with "intelligence." How can there be? If there were, we'd have to wonder what puffer fish or Norway spruce conifers were up to with their superior genetic configurations. What nefarious plans might a genetically well-endowed but inedible puffer fish be up to when we remove it from our hook to toss it back into the ocean? It would seem that, contrary to the Establishment's infotech narrative, the inferred relationship between genes and "intelligence" is non-existent. SPECIAL AND GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY (SGR) The stupid is not confined to Neo-Darwinian biology. The same kind of wishful thinking extends into other wings of Establishment Academia that have interests and careers to preserve... such as relativity physics. Most of us, at one time or another, have probably come across some reference to the inconsistencies between relativity theory (SGR) and quantum mechanics (QM). The second of SGR's two postulates is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (c). But this conflicts with QM, where information has been experimentally shown to be, for all practical intents and purposes, instantaneous. If we weren't educated in either of these fields, we might be inclined to defer judgement to the experts. It is now time to confront them on these inconsistencies. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right. I am putting my money on QM, and I do so for the following reasons: Experimental evidence consistent with QM is compelling and repeatable (some silly or annoying interpretations of said results notwithstanding). Bell's inequality and entanglement have been proven experimentally time and time again, with good, smoking-gun evidence that is difficult to refute; SGR has no smoking-gun evidence... the evidence that they produce is open to concerns about confirmation bias, and brings us back to Binswanger and Horton, and the question of peer-review footsies, and interpretations by "experts" with an agenda. Most importantly, there is no GPS smoking-gun evidence, GPS technology does NOT factor in relativity corrections, but relies on basic feedback control algorithms and Laplace transforms - Barry Springer (2013). This GPS urban legend is trotted out at every opportunity like a prize bull at the Spring Fair, but it is complete nonsense, debunked as comprehensively as the wage-gap myth has been. But it's the only "smoking gun" evidence that they ever had... and it had me until I started digging around; So we've dispensed with the GPS smoking gun. What other evidence do they cite? Galactic red-shift as evidence for the Big Bang? The tired-light hypothesis provides an alternative explanation. And the more they say things, like, "but every scientist knows that tired light is nonsense and not taken seriously any more", the more I am reminded of Fake News Media and the Left. Nope, the tired light hypothesis is as real as red sunsets (photons losing energy tend to the red, in accordance with E=hf. And light scattering by the particles or molecules of interstellar space can also contribute to redshift, as what happens at sunset, when photons have more atmosphere to transit). And no, the Tolman brightness test and other tests are not inconsistent with tired light, no matter how often our lab-technicians masquerading as scientists stamp their feet. We need to ask what part Fake Science might be playing in confabulating a miasma of Big Bang Baloney; Mercury's perihelion shift. Again, no smoking-gun evidence here. Experimental evidence is not conclusive, because said relativity correction contributes of the order, only, of about 7.5% of the total. Given our concerns about Fake News Culture and the peer-review process, we need to be concerned whether this small fraction was arrived at impartially, or in the spirit of confirmation bias. Did they factor everything else in? What about the asteroid belt? Or Dark Matter for that matter? SGR is based on an assumption about the speed of light, and that's all it is... an assumption. They've constructed self-consistent mathematical proofs around that assumption in order to arrive at what I personally conclude is a major category error... the conflation of time as a dimension of space-time; Several sources are available online that debunk relativity theory. It is pointless enumerating them here, as the arguments are detailed and complex, and take us beyond topic. But for those who are interested, googling [relativity theory debunked] provides a good starting point; And finally, an important question that does not seem to entered into mainstream physics discourse. Is it possible that SGR's second postulate, the constancy of c, actually relates to a quantum-mechanical phenomenon rather than a relativistic one? If so, then the central axiom of special relativity, with its relevance to general relativity, no longer holds. This is a question that I am researching at the moment, and it relates to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the notion of "quantum tunnelling"... that a particle's motion through space is not the simple, linear vector as commonly understood in Newtonian physics. SGR's inconsistencies with QM are non-trivial. That nonlocal effects are instantaneous regardless of distance is a huge problem for SGR. That in itself might be enough to kill this SGR monstrosity once and for all, yet the SGR dogma continues to thrive. Like whack-a-mole, it repeatedly keeps wedging its weakly supported assertions into physics discourse, as if "nothing, not even information, can go faster than light" were an established axiom. No sooner do quantum physicists come up with an intriguing conjecture that deserves to be explored, than up it pops again... the constancy of c postulate, as if SGR were an established scientific fact. This weakly supported conjecture is a ball-and-chain that needs to be settled once and for all. THE BIG PICTURE After reading thus far, it still might not be clear to some readers what the core of my objection is. Does my objection relate to Darwinism? Relativity theory? Science? The scientific method? It relates to none of these. The core of my objection relates to culture, and the bad science that must necessarily accompany broken culture. We should judge a culture in the same way we judge people... by its fruits and by the company it keeps. Any culture that can entertain nonsense as toxic and absurd as feminism, with the accompanying victim narratives of post-2016 liberalism, with all its violence, delusion and hypocrisy, will yield mostly rotten fruit. Thus our problem is not that of a few bad apples, but rather, a systemic problem best understood in the context of a broken culture yielding broken science. The core of my objection is that contemporary, mainstream science has ceased to be scientific, and has ceased to conform to the rigorous principles of the scientific method. CONCLUSION I rest my case at this point, and conclude that Fake Science Academia is a logical extension of Fake News Politics and Fake Victim Culture. This is not a problem of Left versus Right but a cultural and epistemological problem that has serious implications for how our world will look in 50 years time. Science has become Scientism, a Church where lab-technicians masquerading as scientists become the caretakers of sacred dogma handed down from on high, and to whom we are all required to genuflect. The time to call them out on their scam is now long overdue. Fake Science Academia is inextricably an expression of Fake News Culture. It's the same kind of groupthink. It's the same kind of bullshit, with the same kind of smug, self-indulgent, intellectual weaklings controlling the discourse. BIBLIOGRAPHY Binswanger, M. (2013, December 17). Excellence by nonsense: The competition for publications in modern science. Springer Link: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/ Crew, B. (2017, June 19). DNA Replication Has Been Filmed For The First Time, And It's Not What We Expected. Science Alert. Retrieved June 17, 2017 from http://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-has-been-filmed-for-the-first-time-and-it-s-stranger-than-we-thought Horton, R. (2015, April 11). Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma? The Lancet, 385 (9976), 1380: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf Kimball, J. W. (2016, April 3). Genome Sizes. Kimball's Biology Pages: http://www.biology-pages.info/G/GenomeSizes.html Springer, Barry (2013). Does GPS Navitation Rely Upon Einstein's Relativity? Proceedings of the NPA: http://worldnpa.org/does-the-gps-system-rely-upon-einsteins-relativity/

The key to understanding women is to understand children, and where the source of motivations come from. Women don't compete or dominate because they don't have to... because there is no onus on them to do so... just like children. Women have a powerful sex drive, but they don't have to pursue it because they don't have to, and therefore they never have to put themselves on the line... because they don't have to, especially if they are attractive. In fact, their sex drives are very flexible, they get off on a wide spectrum of contexts, from intimate and loyal to violent and rapey. And this leaves them open to playing the kid in the candy-store, where they deliberate over which lollies to pick from, because the sex is the one given over which they have very few decisions to deliberate. On its own, this might not make sense. But when factor in culture... and how these predispositions normalize within culture... then everything falls neatly into place. [To understand where I'm coming from here, we need to understand why the genocentric, it's-all-in-the-genes, Neo-Darwinian paradigm is a load of horseshit... but that's another topic for another day] Women also pay a price for their hypergamy. Because culture permits them to be dependent, they are less compelled to confront their fears. And so they often freak when they come across their ideal man. Many people interpret this as women "playing hard to get." They are not playing. They are spooking, and it's for real, and apart from the accompanying thrill and excitement, they don't really like it in the sense of pursuing it as an end in its own right. They spook when, from among the thousands of chimps-masquerading-as-alphas hitting on them, they encounter The One. And so The One, as desirable as he might be, has to work out how to get her, and all too often he has to give up in despair. In fact, I have a theory... I think that a lot of "gays" are not actually homosexual, but men who cannot connect with this idiotic "men have needs" bs that other tap-dancing PUA chumps turn a blind eye to. These days, in this culture of feminism and liberalism, women often choose buffoons-masquerading-as-alphas because beta providers have become moral weaklings and cowards. Like women wearing makeup, perpetuating the facade of beauty, an emotionally stunted idiot-masquerading-as-alpha creates the facade of dominance, and many women buy into it and swallow it hook, line and sinker. Women's hypergamy sheds light on women's choices. From the sublime to the ridiculous, it all makes sense within the context of materialistic hypergamy. From the complete idiots masquerading as alphas, to the boring beta plebs that at least make good providers. I liked it better back in the old days when women chose providers. Back then, in a roundabout way, it was men choosing men... men defining success, and then women opting for successful, interesting men. Women's choices were more sensible, and it was no problem to compete, just by being competent, articulate and engaging. But these days? With the complete losers that women are choosing? Not interested. I'm not thinking of turning gay, but I have to say that I now understand where this gay phenomenon comes from. I suggest that a lot of gay preferences are similarly operating at a subconscious level. Sometimes it's an aversion to betraying trust... other times it's a disinterest in following through with the ridiculous logistics and dishonesty required to make it work. Why do PUAs think it's worth the effort? But hey, it's 2017! These are the times we live in. SJWs, feminism, PUAs and Antifa are all a collective manifestation of exactly the same stoopid that our cultures have become. May our descendants review this period of history with disgust and revulsion.

Stefan's rationale makes good sense, but for most believers, commonsense has little part to play in their beliefs. Ultimately, ALL mainstream interpretations of god are logically impossible for many more reasons than the impossibility of reconciling omnipotence with omniscience. By "mainstream interpretations" I am alluding to anthropocentric interpretations... man made in god's image, and all that. Taking the anthropocentric literal to its most absurd... why would god need hands, legs and eyes? What is he standing on, and where does he walk to? What does he need to pick up and hold with his hands? Etc. Of course more rational believers are quick to respond that this is not what they mean by "man made in god's image", but still, the argument then becomes one of scale. Why are humans "special", why should god single out humans as the most representative of his creation? The latest estimate puts the number of galaxies in the universe at the trillions, with the number of stars in each galaxy at of the order of about 200 billion (my null hypothesis being that life throughout the universe is the given). That humans should be singled out as most representative of godly nature is self-indulgent, anthropocentric nonsense. Now god as the universal collective is somewhat easier to stomach, but this has its own problematics if one fails to take seriously the phenomenological questions that are relevant. For example, how does any entity, god or otherwise, define the things that matter? But I digress. To conclude, ANY anthropocentric god, from the sublime to the ridiculous Man Made In God's Image, defies all logic and commonsense, and I find it surprising that western civilization has advanced as far as it has despite this epistemological ball-and-chain. Still, given the current global situation in politics and religion, this bubble may be about to burst.