Thanks for the long reply.

But they do know how to follow internet gurus, and you have already been 'downvoted' (on an Ayn Rand forum, no less) for being an infidel.

But fear not. Voght says his lecture series is based on his books. https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Multidi... In these learned tombs you will find all your questions answered.

Who needs physics and the anti-concept of non-conservation of angular momeentum to predict that the earth's rotation stops and reverses? Vogt says he "figured it out" from his "information theory of existence".

This deep theory has an impeccable pedigree. He thinks the "Hebrew alphabet" proves there was a "people that was literally tens of millions of years more advanced than us. Abraham and Moses who pulled the two plates out merely found them in, deep in the cave."

"This alphabet is the first physical evidence we have that a very highly advanced civilization once lived on Earth. Creation of the Hebrew Alphabet, will reveal what the Torah really is and by doing so, the surface story disappears entirely. The only part of the surface story that has importance is the Genesis story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden story told us who the people were who put the technology into the family burial cave."

In describing his own book he says, "The author proves that there is a very high probability the next polar reversal will happen between September and December 2046. He found the exact date encoded in the Torah." (So now you know, too.)

Now do you understand? This is even better than besmirching the reputation of Fourier series.

This is how he describes his "philosophy of science":

"Everything starts with an idea -- even the Universe", he tells us. "The currently accepted teaching is that matter is the dominant thing in the Universe, and everything could be explained by understanding the relationship between matter and energy.

"The only alternative explanation is that the Universe is the product of information [information about what?]. The information creates the matter world we live in, and it is transmitted from another time-space relationship, into our time and space to create our reality."

"The Theory of Multidimensional Reality is the world's first purely information theory of existence."

"Only after the last eight years have some physicists come to the conclusion that our reality is a hologram".

That indubitably demonstrates how profoundly scientific he is.
What could be more appropriate to Blarman's religious thread promoting "agnosticism" as respectable?

But there is more to his depth. Here is some more from how he describes his own books:

"God's Day of Judgment; The Real Cause of Global Warming is a totally unique book. It provides the scientific reason for the polar reversals and ice ages. It also answers the age-old religious question: What is God's Day of Judgment and when will it happen? Douglas Vogt offers 60 major scientific discoveries or reinterpretations and 60 major Biblical discoveries."

"Why was the Universe created? If God created the Universe than who created God? And what is man's purpose in the Universe? The answers to these and other difficult questions are in this book."

Among his profound investigations he includes, "We do not know why the natural log e exists in our Universe."

Answer that one from Metaphysics and you have it all.

Yep, Carl is really onto something here. It's the perfect intellectual vortex for the intransigently ignorant. But once again, how does he decide which of these loons to believe and which to ignore? And why does anyone on this forum take his daily regurgitation of embarrassing tripe and nonsense seriously?

Is he more gullible in following this Voght loon, Nephlimphlams, the "Elecrtric Universe", and his theory of unconscious zombies roaming the earth -- or in sending money to "motivational speaker" Mark Hamilton in exchange for his flattery and "manuscripts" after being "invited" to join his NeoNoThink "Society" operated as a Nigerian spam racket? Nigerians, too, are profound. Nigerian tides "are advancing faster than you can deny them...old school out, new school in". It's the latest in "science".

I could not believe that he would give that video as to where science is headed. Such nonsense is far from physical laws, that it should not be taken as any kind of science.
I meet many people who would like to say the science is whatever scientists say it is. They do not want to believe that discovering scientific knowledge is not just to believe what some fancy nonsense says. They never discovered the scientific method for obtaining physical knowledge and never discovered logical thinking for judging what is real.

You cannot be serious to claim that the video has anything to do with science. Vogt seems to not understand mathematics or physics. He seems to believe that the Fourier series for a square wave will explain everything about spectra. Why use a Fourier series for a square wave when spectral lines are not necessarily equally spaced. One does not place an equals sign between unequal quantities as he does in his little chart. Pure numerology.
His belief that somehow electrons in an atom can only jump to a single higher energy state thus producing no more than the number of electrons spectral lines is a miss understanding of the cause of spectra. Depending upon the absorbed energy of photons, there is a vary large number of spectral lines detectable. In fact, there can be a near continuous number of spectral lines as in black body radiation.
Vogt does not under stand the physics of angular momentum and inertia. To stop the Earth's rotation would require a momentum transfer to the Earth equal to the angular momentum of the rotation of the Earth. That is completely impossible from any electromagnetic forces, especially any internally generated forces. Momentum can only be changed by an external momentum. Any changes in rotation rate, wobble, etc. are due to the redistribution of matter, but does not decrease the total angular momentum. Outside forces such as the gravitational forces from the moon, planets, and the Sun do transfer momentum to the angular momentum of the Earth and can slightly change the rotation rate of the Earth. The idea that the magnetic poles can change with a shift in the crust of the Earth is pure nonsense. just the inertia differences between the poles and equator would stop any such shift of crust in a short period of time.
As for gravitation being an electromagnetic phenomenon, with respect to being a central force, is a surface charge on a sphere force, 4PIradius of the sphere, while gravitational force is a densitymass central force, 4/3PI*radius^2. The fact that electromagnetism is on the order 10^40 times as strong as gravitation force, it is only great enough to overcome gravitation for relatively small masses. Try to pick up a paperclip with a magnet on, say, a white dwarf or a neutron star.

Why not simply take someone at their word in the first place instead of automatically assuming ulterior motives as you did? Why seek to denigrate someone simply because you disagree with them philosophically? Both are emotional and not rational responses. Casting aspersions at someone is the sign that conversation is over. Adieu.

You said you were looking for evidence upon which to build a postulate. I gave you some. If you choose to ignore it because of your own preconceptions and prejudices that is your choice. The point of this conversation was to see how truly agnostic and open to other ideas self-described atheists really are. I am disappointed, but not really surprised.

Similarly, if you choose to rationalize away every suggestion from other people which you don't like and call it "arbitrary" because it doesn't fit with your biases, that is also your choice but it again is a far cry from being agnostic. Adieu.

So when it becomes available invite me then and not use a future reading as your definition of purpose. A definition is not composed of a book, but rather of a genus and the distinguishing relationships which is the differentia, a mathematical relationship to other existing members in that genus.

So the big Consciousness with no existing stuff had a thought and magically matter and radiation came into the existence that the big C had thought up?
Matter and radiation have identities and act in accord with those identities. Life requires carbon with its bonding properties. It and other elements which compose life do not act randomly. They act with respect their identities which might be considered complex at the quantum level.
Complexity is how hard it is to describe the degree of randomness in some context.
Life is a process of decreasing the entropy of certain systems, living systems. It requires energy from outside of it to do that decrease. Don't think that I view entropy as any more than a relationship about matter nor as some kind of controlling consciousness.
To believe that something somehow produced all the matter and radiation is to have a belief without any evidence whatsoever. It is the belief of those who knock on my door and wave their hand at what exists as a proof that god exists.

As for the last part of my post, I was just showing how thoughts can be arbitrary in that I had random idea pass into consciousness with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Of course thoughts originate in one's brain but may or may not be arbitrary about objective reality. Of course my comment was created as an arbitrary comment with no reasoning behind it other than to make a sentence with no real context other than that of showing that thoughts need not relate to objective reality. That one can just pretend that some reality exists where isolated consciousnesses can exist, being conscious of nothing or just dream of nothing.

I was being entirely serious and not at all flippant or casual. After a year of work, the final draft is done and I am working with a published author to get it edited, sized, and all the rest (since the process is new to me). Has it been written? Yes. Does it cover Purpose? Yes - extensively. It also touches on basic economics and value derivation through consensual exchange. And when it becomes available, I plan on offering it through the Gulch Store (if possible).

I never try to "put one over on" other people regarding philosophy. I don't have anything to gain through deception and according to my personal code of conduct it is morally wrong of me to engage in any such. If you don't want to believe me, that's your choice. We can have fundamental philosophical disagreements, but when the matter becomes one of impugning the other's motives, ad hominem invective, etc., then that's when I leave them to their own devices because all possibility of a profitable exchange of ideas gives way to personal bigotry.

"Science, as a process, does not postulate unless some evidence exists to do so, i.e.,"

To me, evidence abounds pointing to the presence of something more than random chance. Life itself - especially human life - is far too complex for it to be an accident even once - let alone in billions of separate species. The construction of this solar system and planet have so many interweaved variables that if one relies completely on chance one is taking a leap of faith so astronomically improbable that it dwarfs the number of atoms in the universe (assuming the calculation is accurate of course). I can find evidence to support a search in just about everything I look at. The question is whether or not someone else is willing to do the same.

I didn't really catch much of the rest of your post. I wasn't sure if it was just an arbitrary thought or a thought experiment that I failed to follow.

So you cannot define 'purpose'?
Sure is impossible without a published book or the manuscript or even parts of it being placed on the Internet. The only objective evidence is that you claim to have one that has not been published yet. I will not be agnostic about the existence of a book that may or may not exist. For the present I have no possibility of ever reading the non existent book, I have no reason to believe that your reference to it is no more than an arbitrary statement, though maybe a mental attempt to put something over on me.

Science, as a process, does not postulate unless some evidence exists to do so, i.e., evidence from which an hypothesis can be formed. Just guessing that something is unknown and that unknown is explainable by some arbitrary hypothesis is not rational.
'an arbitrary thought' means that the thought has not been logically formatted from evidence or already known to be true knowledge. An human brain is quite capable of producing any kind of nonsense thoughts automatically such as in dreams where the dream has no relation to objective reality. An agnostic has an arbitrary thought that some thing, a god, might exist without any evidence from objective reality. The brain has an extremely complex identity which can and does sometimes produce thoughts which are irrational due to not consciously applying a string of logical conscious arguments.
I just had a thought: you are lying in the road waiting to commit suicide. I posit that that is not an
arbitrary thought due to my brain being perfectly unable to have a none rational thought. Same goes for any agnostic posits.

If you want to know how I define Purpose, I'd invite you to read my book, because that is the topic and the title. I'm working with the publisher now.

Others merely assign false names and descriptions to that which they do not want to believe. They create straw men out of false definitions, pronounce them to be false, then spend their time in self-congratulation. There are those of all stripes, creeds, and affiliations who do this, deceiving themselves and then seeking validity for their deception through the approbation of others.

I do not believe there is a "supernatural" realm - only portions of reality which we do not at the present time have instruments which can uncover such. I don't believe there are any extra-realistic laws - just principles which many do not understand. The real question is whether or not one is seeking for the truth even if it is difficult to accept given ones' preconditions or if one is comfortable with what one has.

There are some postulates which argue that the speed of light is not a constant and has actually been decreasing. If that is true, it undermines much of what people "understand" about the Big Bang theory. All we have are momentary measurements and assumptions to deal with in a field of study still very new. Any inference must still be validated by concrete testing.

"Do you make hypothesis just out of arbitrary thoughts?"

What is an "arbitrary" thought? If the thought did not originate from within your own conscious processes, then from where - or whom? If it did originate within your thought processes, it could not have been arbitrary, but the results of other thoughts. I would caution against trivializing any thought because that is how many people rationalize away the evidence right in front of them.

There are many who are like Stadler because that is the way the game is played. There are some who are like Ferris, too, with a high concentration of Ferrises in the climate change and alternate energy areas. Those who have legitimate alternate energy technologies who do not want the graft are not widely known. The prestige is with "earning" grants and publishing papers, rather than with earning contracts, publishing patents and making usable products.

Stadler or Ferris or a combination of both? Stadler was 'non-political': He didn't want to be bothered with the politics, only have others provide him the means and state prestige for his work, lending his scientific prestige to whatever wanted to exploit it. Ferris was all overt political power-seeking and wielding of power with no real work to support.

Very true, Lucky.

Amazingly, many faculty at many universities like being "politicians pursuing grants". There are many who aspire to be Stadler.

Well I remember while in industry working on proposals to get government grants as the company was supposedly doing research.

One of the parts of Richard Feynman's story I remember was how he refused to do the admin. - It was a wasteful diversion of his time, there were competent people who can do that.
It would not be easy to take that stance and succeed.

In a mixed economy in which someone's chosen career is dominated by government he has no obligation to forego that chosen career (provided it is a legitimate career). But for the reasons government should not be dominating it it's not good that it does, and one has to live with that, so it's good that you found a way to avoid it.

One of the reason I chose to not pursue an academic career was the typical university requirements for faculty to be politicians pursing grants, mostly government, to fund the university. Who wants to live like that?

Thank you. There are many things that I took out of reading AS as an adult. One thing I could do something about was to do whatever I could to make Florida Tech into a university like The Patrick Henry University. It's not there yet and never will be ... because since I read AS, I haven't gone after money from The State Science Institute (i.e. NSF or NIH). In some ways that put me in a vulnerable position, but I made enough money from my past ventures that I can now fund my own research. Being at a university with a tenure system early in my career would have definitely been incompatible with me being able to avoid The State Science Institute path. Many of my colleagues think I'm nuts for doing it this way, but science and engineering requires the correct philosophy.

You're in an impressive department.

Kooks demanding attention are not the tide of science. You are not any kind of "school". You have no background in science and do not understand it. You have latched onto something promoted on the internet and follow it as the "wisdom" of a guru with no understanding. Anyone can broadcast anything on the internet. And they do. Please stop these repetitive promotions of nonsense. It is not science. It does not belong on this forum.

Ironically, the following came to my e-mail attention today after your question:

Osteoblastic Cell Stimulation by Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields

New Rochelle, NY, March 27, 2019—Bone fracture healing can be augmented with the application of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs), but a consensus regarding idealized conditions is lacking. A new study characterizes the in vitro effects of these PEMFs on the crucial osteoblast precursor cells and seeks to determine the optimal conditions that will promote bone regeneration. The study is published in Tissue Engineering, a peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. Click here to read the full-text article free on the Tissue Engineering website until April 27, 2019.

Swee-Hin Teoh, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, presents his work with colleagues in an article titled “Effects of Electromagnetic Field on Proliferation, Differentiation and Mineralization of MC3T3 Cells”. The authors applied a daily controlled dose of pulsed electromagnetic radiation in varying duration to MC3T3-E1 osteoblast precursor cells and monitored cell viability and metabolic activity. This analysis revealed that the PEMFs increased cell proliferation either with or without osteogenic media. Calcium deposition was not enhanced by the PEMF, but osteogenic gene expression was induced. The study demonstrates that PEMF parameters must be chosen carefully to produce the desired effects for bone regeneration.

“This study confirms that pulsed electromagnetic field have indeed potential for application in bone regeneration, but the data emphasized also that a carefull selection of the PEMF parameters is required to induce a favorable effect,” says Tissue Engineering Methods Co-Editor-In-Chief Editor John A. Jansen, DDS, PhD, Professor and Head, Department of Biomaterials, Radboud University Medical Center.