It’s the flying teapot in the sky
from whence all dark energy flows
or could it be green tea it brews
or maybe the jean genie in a stew
-
I know, I know – it’s a metaphor
This is the source of the universe
it pours like liquid from the spout
goes thru you and you and recycled
returns to make another magic brew
-
Hope you had a great Thankgiving!
Whether you thanked mum and dad
or simply thanked your lucky stars
-

I should think it at least merits a hat tip to Daevid Allen.

High in the sky, what do you see ?
Come down to Earth, a cup of tea
Flying saucer, flying teacup
From outer space, Flying Teapot

If it’s floating around in space there can’t be any tea in it. So it must be a cosmological null-tea.

It’s Clifford’s Lost Teapot that accompanies his set of “Storms in a Teacup”.

Hey Sean, what do you think of the LMT?
http://www.lmtgtm.org/science.html

As is well known to all Max users, a teapot is a geometric primitive, with the same status as a box, a sphere, a cylinder, a torus, a cone, a geosphere, a tube, a pyramid, or a plane.

B, I’ve gotta compliment you on your sphere of speculation, which is most fantastic in nature! Sorry to say though, I’ve got some obvious reservations about just how this sluggish-looking, not to mention frail-looking teapot could possibly survive “Infinite Improbability Drive”. But then, on second thought, all the numerous crackpots scattered across the human-specific biosphere might simply be relics from all the numerous failed attempts to have human-teapots reach faster-than-light drive on planet Earth.;)

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

The presence of this teapot is disprovable by the scientific method. Just fly a probe to the region. Religion, and beliefe in God is not disprovable by the scientific method.

“The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell’s teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. ”

Defend themselves against what? Against something that many adults have converted to (and still convert to) who were once athiests, by their own volition?

I also think that since the President is powerful and influential, he/she deserves outright hostility. Meditation is also powerful and influential and therefore deserves outright hostility. Science as well.

“Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don’t exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don’t stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don’t warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don’t kneecap those who put the tea in first.”

Well duuh. That’s because teapots in outer space most likely don’t exist and science can one day prove this with a spacecraft. Also, the existence of teapots in outer space is not allowed by the currently accepted model of solar system formation (neglecting the possibility that aliens deposited a teapot in outer space).

More confusing than the teapot is the minimum of five different sources of illumination necessary to explain the lighting on all the bodies in this picture…

Damn. I wondered where I put that teapot…

One hundred years ago
neutrinos could not be counted or measured
Does that mean neutrinos do not exist?
and, did not exist one hundred years ago?
-
I thought neutrinos are supposed to have started their journey 13.7 billion years ago in a big bang that cannot be proved (or disproved) – and flew straight thru the great teapot in the sky, and the teapot where you are brewing your pot of tea

Whether Tin tea pot, or china teapot?
Must be proof that intelligent life ‘created’ it
And used it in some (obscure) ritual called ‘brewing tea’
-
Whether this ritual was imported to China from India, or whether the British Empire tried to tax the ritual – no one is sure, but someone tells me “The Boston Tea Party” is where American Independence began. And the Sensational Alex Harvey Band’s track of the same name is still awesome, though not neutrinos but some other ‘nuclear decay’ have already called time on the man

“No its not disprovable, by definition this teapot is too small to ever be observable.”

Then it doesn’t exist, by quantum mechanics.

Also, if it’s too small to be observable, then how is it a teapot? A teapot is something you use to brew tea. If it’s too small to be observable, then you can’t use it to brew tea, hence it’s not a teapot. If a chair had all its legs removed, it’s not a chair anymore. If a physical object can’t, in principle, be observed, then in what sense is it a physical object?

Vince, please present the full argument from quantum mechanics that this teapot doesn’t exist; at least more than “by quantum mechanics”. I am sure your argument will take us a long way in ‘proving’ that God doesn’t exist.

Also you ask:
“If a physical object can’t, in principle, be observed, then in what sense is it a physical object?”

The teapot is a physical object in the same sense God is a physical object.

I never said there was anything wrong with following a religion.

Sorry, I was responding to a part of the quote in that wikipedia link when I wrote about parents passing a religion down.

Also, by “physical object” I mean a material object, an object made up of standard model, etc., particles.

If you can’t observe any of the properties associated with a teapot, then it’s not there.

Vince, Suppose I believe in this thing described in #27; if someone wants to say that it doesn’t exist they should have 100% accurate knowledge about everything.

Actually this teapot was destroyed be a meteor a couple of thousand years ago, so we can’t prove or disprove its existence empirically. But there are compelling non-eyewitness accounts suggesting that it cared about us and insisted upon our devotion.

Since it was destroyed by a meteor, surely there must be debris floating around space. So, send out a few thousand probes and let it search every planet and every little spot in the solar system. It must find something. If not, then most likely it never existed.

Teapots don’t care about us. Teapots don’t even have a will or an intellect for God’s sake!

Perhaps you can’t prove it didn’t have a will or intellect. I suppose you’re perfectly entitled to believe that it did have a will or intellect, though you’d have no basis for that belief unless you knew something about this teapot that sets it aside from all other teapots that leads you to reason that this teapot is smart. Or perhaps many people throughout the ages testified that the teapot once existed and had a will and intellect and wrote about the cool things that the teapot did for them and said to them.

Come on Quasar, Clifford’s “Storms in a Teacup” are explicitly about a battle brewing within physics, not a war brewing within civilization!

Face it, with an underlying intent to break away from the Motherland, colonial rebels staged a tea party to stir up support for revolution. In fact, the tea party was merely a platform to express a rallying cry; a rallying cry aimed to entice young recruits for battle. After all, leaders of the American Revolution knew good and well that residents from the old country were being hit with even higher taxes than the colonists: taxes needed to cover enormous debts following the costly Seven Years’ War.

These revolutionaries (including a few of my ancestors, in fact) were willing to sacrifice their safety: the safety of living under the security of a great military might, The British Empire. Simply put, they chose a chance for independence over safety and security. Doubtlessly, it was a huge gamble. But luckily, the chance for independence- needless to say – paid off quite handsomely.;)

Oh my goodness, could that really be the Doormouse out there?

http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/tenniel/alice/7.3.html