Leaderboard

Of course not... but in searching for the truth... why entertain the absurd? I was a Christian for a long time. I understand how easy it is to believe such clap trap. I understand the desire to see the world improve (which it has SO SO SO much over centuries).. to share and spread love and forgiveness, to love your neighbour and harder still your enemy. I even have/had a close personal relationship with the holy ghost. So what? it doesn't make god real because we want it to be. It is what it is and it isn't god. We have discussed at length on here how the human psyke invents the supernatural to make himself feel better and to protect himself from the unknown.... we have grown beyond that. Lie to yourself if wish, tell your self you are going somewhere else when you pass on if that is what you are worried about... just don't expect any support for your fantasy here on a science site because it is clearly rubbish. We ALL get the sense of numinous about the amazing things in the universe - that isn't god, it is just you being humble enough to see that the world is bigger than you and you are insignificant compared to the size of the universe.

It still isn't agreed that you are higher up than your gold fish... when they are in your pool, maybe. When you are in the middle of the Atlantic, drowning, they will feed off you and your superiority is not so obvious. They have evolved to fit their niche and they do it better than you do. Also - there is no evidence suggesting anything at all 'further up' your heirachy. Just stating it doesn't make it true... we are going round in circles... which is probably why you are getting neg rep. It wasn't me, but it could be.... in fact - I think I might because you complained about it and moaned that it was cowardly. BS - it is anonymous for a reason. Or lepricorns or unicorns or any other such myths - yes - if you start saying they are real without any proof of them then of course you will get neg rep on a science site... or a suggestion that you see a shrink. But there are no examples of it because it doesn't exist. Some animals are better than others at certain tasks but not in other areas. You are better than a fish on land but a shark will eat you in the water - horses for courses - NO heirachy as you are suggesting it. I won't comment anymore unless you direct something at me personally - I'll let Tar humour you so the pair of you can go round in circles getting nowhere talking rubbish about a heirachy that clearly doesn't exist. Waste your time all you like on another 16 pages of nonsense.... or go to the doctor and tell him you used to be a physics teacher and then show him this thread and your centrifugal force thread and see if HE can help you. ;-) Sorry if that sounds harsh... I could sit in silence and watch you continue with your drivel or I can try to help by stating straight away that you are barking up the wrong tree. Barking being the point I am making here and thus the suggestion of a doctor.

No. If something "local" is accelerated then its increase in kinetic energy can be interpreted as an increase in (relativistic) mass, as described by SR. That does not apply to galaxies moving apart from one another which is not [local] motion and there is no increase in relative energy. Yes, because expansion is a scaling effect, not a speed. So it is just simple arithmetic that the speed of separation is proportional to distance. For example, consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light.

It would eliminate the need for tiresome discussions such as this one. /humour

Am I talking to a brick wall? The only thing stopping you from presenting the evidence and reasoning in regard to the principle of crowding is that you won't get off your ****ing ass, gather the evidence and present it. That (mis)behaviour has produced two immediate consequences: 1. I have downvoted your last post. 2. If you choose not to get of your ass and present something of substance I shall urge the moderators to shut this thread down. What do you feed yours on? Mine seems to prosper on a diet of wilfiul ignorance and blind faith. I keep these locked in the larder so the hierarchies can't get at them.

No, it's a rule of thumb for anyone who has a decent moral compass and doesn't have a political agenda.

Area54, I apologize for using the term "someone like Area54" and implying you downvoted when you did not. My comment was still valid in the general sense, that I was trying to explain to mike why I have stayed off threads he is on. Not that I don't look at them, but that when I do respond, both Mike and I wind up getting down votes, and it is annoying. Like perhaps people get more defensive or something when the two of us get together on an idea. Better usually to stand apart, and not have each of our individual weaknesses lumped together and attacked as one. Regards, TAR

I know the character well from the 'Horus Heresy' series and the background in the codexes for the game I play. He is supposed to be amazing, but in some of the books he comes across as a total dick. He basically lies to all mankind and his mistake leaves him close to death... he sits on the golden throne near death and the 'priests' of the administratum sacrifice 1000 human souls per day to keep him alive. He is mankind's only defence against the giant warp portal he is sitting on and blocking.. eternally protecting the humans from the perils of the warp whilst sitting in his torpor. If he had listened to his 'son' Magnus instead of allowing himself to be deceived by the chaos minions then the world (in the 40K universe) would be a much greater place. ... so, although he is actually real in their universe (unlike our mythical gods), he is a bit of a dick and has no power in the physical world anymore. It is a pretty good storey though... I am well behind on the books. PS - I think you are right - education, education, education... shine the emperor's light on the darkness of ignorance.

You post, and people get to criticize. Calling disapproval "bullying" is an insult to people who actually get bullied.

"PS . THIS -2 DOWN VOTING IS QUITE REDICULOUS , THIS IS TURNING THIS FORUM INTO A ANCIENT ROMAN COLLOSIUM PUTTING HUMANS IN THE LIONS DEN . HOW STUPID IS THAT?" Maybe it's your ludicrously bad spelling that annoys whoever it is (can't possibly be the endless reams of drivel - or the seemingly total lack of listening skills).

Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor — but they have few followers now. - Arthur C. Clarke Anonymous Participant, you seem like a rational person aside for the whole ID. Tell me, if you never heard of your God and just stumbled on an old dusty book called the "Bible" in a library and you read it. Would you go: wow that is a great science fiction collection of stories or would you make it your new religion and start preaching ID on a science forum?

It is not that we are unwilling to help. The issue is that you appear to lack the very basic understanding required to even approach the questions you posted. It is too much of an undertaking for strangers on an Internet forum to try and fill those gaps when they are so large. What I was trying to suggest to you was that you first need to go away and study from the text book / your lecture notes. The things you need to know will be summarised there. If you are struggling to understand specific concepts, then you can ask questions and we can help to clarify things. What you are doing now is asking extremely broad questions, and there is little point in us trying to answer them in the ground-up fashion you require since your textbook already does this. To repeat, go and study the concepts you have already covered in class. Consult Google if you think you are still lacking the foundational knowledge to comprehend what you are being taught (for instance, if you don't know what an atom is, or what is meant by covalent, polar covalent, ionic bonds, etc., you need to go and read up - I suggest starting with the beginning of your text book), or ask here and we can try and point you in the right direction of where to look. Once you have done this, then go back and attempt the questions you originally posted here. If you are still stuck, identify which parts of the question you do understand, and then which parts you don't understand and ask here for help on those parts.

Yes, because it's so much better when I'm trying to organize a play for VBS and someone yells "Do you have a black actor?" Because THATS the way to make sure they don't feel left out. Honestly. Screw ethnicity. If people are gonna claim everyone's equal, you can't go around telling them they have to include a black actor. And the kid who ended up getting chosen to be an actor. In front of everyone else. Because he was black. I'm sure he loved that part. Mainly because he was the only black kid there. And there were 5 actors. Out of 40 plus kids. Will Smith, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, and Eddie Murphy are all successful black actors, WELL known too. Your view is kinda biased. OR. It simply makes for better kids cartoons if they don't make the princess weigh 500 pounds and the prince a short alcoholic. I mean. Come on. Of all the things to be offended of. I've never heard someone yell "You don't look like Cinderella!" as an insult. I'm not saying that they're not biased, but I highly doubt that the ultimate goal of them was to advance a white supremacist agenda. Most likely, they just made movies that they thought kids would like.

You have this bass ackwards, if you are asserting the universe is intelligently designed then the burden of proof is on you! Personally I really don't know, I do know that science has little to nothing to say about before the big bang. You however appear to be claiming knowledge no one else has. I am excited to hear your knowledge and the evidence that supports it..

Tub; Welcome to my thread. I remember you from Ten oz's thread, and you had some interesting things to say, but I don't remember if I communicated with you directly. Your points are interesting, so please consider my responses. At my present level of understanding, I would agree with you. But this agreement depends upon what you mean when you say "Consciousness". Most people mean the rational conscious aspect of mind, in which case I don't agree with you. Consciousness is simply awareness, and awareness seems to be an on/off type of thing -- either you are aware or you are not. What we can be aware of seems to be connected with the physical traits of the life form as some have the ability to sense more than others, hence they have more awareness. I think we agree here. On the other hand, if the Big Bang theory, or something like it, is true, then awareness might have evolved. I am a mechanic at heart, so I look at how things work, how they do what they do. When you look at a tree, where is the awareness that makes you aware of the tree? Is it in the tree? Is it in you? Most people think that the awareness is in us, but if that were the case, then there would be no difference between illusion and reality because it would all be within us -- there are some theories of consciousness that follow this path. My take on this is that awareness is between you and the tree, that awareness is the relationship or bond between you and the tree. So in my opinion awareness requires matter, time, and space. For awareness to occur, there must be a point to focus from, and a point to focus on, in order for awareness to happen. So matter and space must exist in order for those points to exist. So there was no awareness prior to the Big Bang or whatever caused matter to exist. This idea seems to be consistent with what we know about evolution; awareness is dependent upon matter. What I find interesting in the above is that the last two lines are a reasonably good description of the unconscious aspect of mind. The unconscious is primordial, timeless, and can overwhelm and displace self-consciousness. We have only just begun to unwrap the secrets of the unconscious aspect of mind in the last hundred or so years, but it is easy to see why older philosophies and religions attributed some of the unconscious aspects to mystic ideas. If you go to Wiki and look up the unconscious, you can learn more, but I recommend that you also look up Matte Blanco and Jung's Oneness theory. Blanco found five or six levels or stratums in the unconscious and discovered that there is a logic in the unconscious if you eliminate time from your considerations. (chuckle) His work has been validated by clinical studies and explains things like childhood traumas affecting the whole life, and things like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which can take your awareness out of time and space. Jung's Oneness theory suggests that we are all connected through our unconscious. I have not read the whole work, but from what I have seen, he seems to think that all species have this connection through the unconscious. I suspect that all life is connected through the unconscious. Isn't that a lot like the cake baking itself to see what it tastes like? For myself, I know that the cake is made up of ingredients, so that is where I will start when trying to make a cake. Consciousness is made up of components, things that must be in order for it to work the way it does, so that is what I am working on. Yes it is. I reviewed Panpsychism a few years ago and found it interesting. Like all theories of consciousness it has some ideas to add to the whole. But there is still no comprehensive theory of consciousness, and there are many other theories that also have validity. One of the ideas that I found interesting in Panpsychism is the thought that it might be able to answer the question of "self". We do not really know where "self" comes from, or why life has the sense of "self". If "self" is an intrinsic property of matter, Panpsychism could possibly explain this. Gee

! Moderator Note That's not how this works. You need to provide evidence in support of your assertion. If you do not, this will be closed. If you go off-topic, this will be closed.

"It takes big money to run these kinds of experiments, and access to the process is always limited" General Relativity was based solely on thought experiments ( there were no elevators in free fall in 1916 ), and it cleared up some inconsistencies with Newtonian gravity at the time, such as irregularities in Mercury's orbit, the problem of 'action at a distance', and finally put to rest absolute time and space ( and the aether ). GR in effect, filled in gaps which were becoming apparent with Newtonian gravity, and is consistent with Newtonian gravity in those areas where both are applicable. Electrostatic attraction between dissimilar charged particles as a gravitational model fails immediately as non charged particles ( and even massless particles like photons ) interact gravitationally. your subsequent mention of Intelligent Design is even more absurd, and the mental equivalent of 'grasping at straws' because you have no other explanation. If the universe is so complex that it requires an intelligence to design it, then the designer must be vastly MORE complex. Doesn't the designer, then, require a designer ( by your logic ). And so on, and so on... ( turtles all the way down ) It was you who stated "you have no place in the intellectual discipline that is science", not any of us. Presumably because we are 'close minded' and not 'open to new ideas', but actually, we are simply resisting ideas that do not pass scientific scrutiny.

No one is silencing you. You were asked to provide evidence. You were unable to do this. You have, effectively, silenced yourself. Atheism is not a belief system. Creationism/ID is based on a belief system (one that takes a number of metaphorical myths as being literally true.) And atheism has nothing to do with science. There are, and always have been, many religious scientists.

Preaching is unwelcome here, most especially in a section entitled Modern and Theoretical Physics.

Ego detector overload alert Captain.

! Moderator Note Get to the point, then, instead of tap-dancing. ! Moderator Note You posted your assertions in someone else's thread. That's hijacking. If you have some conjecture it belongs in its own thread in speculations, which is why it was split. You need to back up your assertions with some sort of model and/or evidence. It needs to be falsifiable. Get to it. ! Moderator Note Let's focus on the science, if and when it is presented.

These examples are less diet and more along the lines of physical and psychological torture which could alter a person's mental health sufficiently that they might not engage in a decent loving relationship with someone of the same sex afterwards. Which, in a sick way, could be seen as 'treating' their homosexuality - just don't let anyone catch you doing such 'treatments' unless you want to spend time in jail. Frankly the subject's behavior - both sexual and otherwise - after the torture is more likely to be far more disturbing than it was beforehand. You'd do a better job of determining if diet has any effect on homosexuality by first surveying people to determine if there is any commonalities between the foods that all homosexuals eat and contrast that with the foods that all heterosexuals eat. However, I speculate that you'd quickly find there is no such commonality or contrast; that diet has utterly no affect on sexuality. Warning, bad pun:

Life elsewhere in the universe isn't necessary for my point to hold. There IS other life on earth... other conscious life... and we can't even confidently arrive at conclusions about that. Octopus, whales, ravens, etc... First measure their level of consciousness and we'll talk, but even then... It all depends on the arbitrary definition of consciousness we happen to select and we seem to have a really bad habit of selecting definitions that place humans "above" all others.

One thing that is certain is we are all traveling forward through time, and are thus time travelers. If time is a variable that slows down or speeds up, then relativity has a fundamental flaw, because how fast light travels in a given frame of reference would always be different than in another and the given velocity of light would be variable when observed from different perspectives, but what we see instead is that it is a constant in all frames of reference and observation. While gravity is not created by the Earths rotation, it's overall force is most certainly affected by that rotation and the centripetal acceleration that results. I'm not sure how helpful this is but motion affects gravity and can create artificial gravitational effects. Eventually gravity will be understood as an effect of electrostatic attraction between dissimilar charged particles in matter , but that is another thread Pardon me for my confusion, but one of the force vectors created by a rotational acceleration IS indeed centripetal acceleration. While acceleration of the rotation is not necessary for the force of centripetal acceleration to exist, it DOES indeed directly effect its value and if no rotational acceleration had ever existed there would be no centripetal acceleration. They're not the same thing exactly obviously but are intrinsically linked, which you seem to be unaware of. While it isn't a proper scientific nomenclature, how fast something is rotating around a central point or changing position does indeed have a direct correlation to the centripetal acceleration that acts on said object or mass. Take the example of a simple flywheel, when torque is applied it's rotational velocity increases and the force created by centripetal acceleration increases. Without rotation, no centripetal acceleration can exist. it might be rotation of a fixed mass or one mass around another held in orbit by gravity, a mechanical link or any number of ways. In a discussion involving any subject it is critical to always use correct terminology and nomenclature to describe a given component of your thoughts. Language is the commonality we all use to understand each other. The problem with what you said is no two people could likely be certain what it was exactly. That being said, YOU ARE NOT ALONE! There are many so called theories in science and especially physics that no two people have the same understanding of . but in that case it is simply because they don't really make any sense and defy logic or conventional wisdom. I think looking back on the 20th century, we will see it as a dark age of science where no one actually understood any of the widely touted "theories" in the same way. IMO for a theory to be valid, there must be some logical consensus about what said theory claims. The fact that it is testable using mathematics only proves it is an artificial mathematical construct, Hollywood in science..For a theory to be valid it has to be universally understood by those educated in the field of physics, and testable by conclusive experimentation that cannot be debunked through other explanations of the observed phenomenon.

Most of your posts are also nonsense most of the time because I realize you really post a lot of nonscientific bullshit.

It isn't religions (generally) that deny science. It is some individuals who have a (usually) distorted view of religion (and maybe of science). For example, people who take every word of the bible literally (which, obviously, was never the purpose). And yet plenty of people do. Religious scientists, for example.

Area54, So I guess you are that higher intelligence/lifeform that is looking out for Mike. Hierarchy proved. Regards, TAR

If you received list of chemicals by their formulas, search net (f.e. Google) for each formula, and in search results there will be Wikipedia page link about compound. Read them all. On the right side of each chemical wiki page there is mentioned whether compound is soluble in water or alcohol and in what solubility (in g/100 mL typically).

Evidence for crowding by goldfish ::::::::::: :::::::::::: previously given Evidence for crowding by Humans :::::::::: :::::::::::: previously given ( partly ) Evidence for crowding by Spirit realm :::::: ::::::::::: some , but more ( to follow ) ================================================== PS . THIS -2 DOWN VOTING IS QUITE REDICULOUS , THIS IS TURNING THIS FORUM INTO A ANCIENT ROMAN COLLOSIUM PUTTING HUMANS IN THE LIONS DEN . HOW STUPID IS THAT? REMINISSENT OF BULLYING ================================================== mike

Well nobody has given any idea as to what God looks like . I think he/she/it is in every single Higgs boson across the entire Universe , in other words totally unrecognisable in any way we can think of it , other than the whole thing , the whole universe . As for your bevy of Angels , this is what is listed under images Angels mike I appreciate your thought about getting on with the research , that is what I have been doing for the last 25 years . I am not so sure I am going to find what I am looking for in a huge electronic dictionary . As that is the consensus of a majority of people who do not believe much in supernatural phenomenon . That's why I have tried to do the research myself on this very important subject , first hand . I admit like everybody else , turns to Wikipedia for a lot of information . It was just on this one , at it is so important , I would go at it first hand . Like I stood on a rock in the middle of the abandoned moor , one wet day . Turned my head to the sky , and asked ? IS THERE ANYBODY THERE ? .??

I HAVE presented my evidence for intelligent design and stated it quite succinctly what it is, and you know it. The evidence of intelligent design is every single observation we make in science, and that the scientific process itself is predicated upon the belief that there is an intelligent arrangement that can be decoded by intelligence. I am putting the ball in your court, I have said my evidence is everything about the universe, and yours is obviously nothing and you know it. I have given you ample room and method to falsify my evidence of EVERYTHING , every single observation yet made in science. Now if you can't find a single observation that falsifies it, you have to face the fact that you're wrong, and you are. You are desperate to censor my intelligent contribution here because you are intellectually incapable of defeating me in scientific debate or on the evidence itself. If you want a specific evidence how about the fact that the earth supporting life is dependent upon a very large number of precise conditions and complex interactions, any of which a slight variation would cause life to cease to exist, or the properties of water, the distance of the moon from the earth being precise enough to cause total solar eclipses where the sun and moon appear identical in size, the fact that when the Sun experiences a solar flare the strength of the geomagnetic field increases in direct response, the fact that so many forms, numerical sequences and relationships are repeated in nearly everything and the DNA code being indistinguishable from intelligence. Come on man, you know I've given my evidence, you're a religious fanatic supporting a faith based idea having an identical reaction to any other religious fanatic when your beliefs are challenged!. WRONG! Organized religion does operate on that assumption but I believe we are just an integral part of it and we project our conscious onto energy to create what we perceive as our reality. There are numerous experiments being conducted that prove the physical world around us does not exist until we consciously observe it, that indicates we are integral to it. The belief in intelligent design of the universe has nothign whatsoever to do with religion other than religious people believe the universe is an intelligent design, it has to do with science.You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater I do not believe in a God as you obviously perceive it, some old dude with flaming radioactive eyes and huge flowing grey beard sitting on a huge golden throne in the sky metering out suffering to anyone who opposes his will, I believe in something very different, that the universe, the self and the creator are integral to each other. It is critical to understand that science is not a religion nor is it a pulpit for atheism, but it si obvious this forum is. It is equally obvious that academia has been taken over and controlled by atheists. Yesterday evening I posted a comment from Albert Einstein which said essentially the same thing I have here about intelligent design and it was removed very swiftly by the above atheist moderator, for obvious reasons. He might be the god of Aesthetic pseudoscience but he was a deist and he believed in a creator and intelligent design himself.

And you are an atheist, correct? Defending your religious belief? Atheism IS a religious belief. And belief concerning the existence or non existence of a god or sentient being is a religious belief, a negative is a belief. AN atheist could say everything is evidence of a lack of intelligent design, but he would be blowing smoke out his ass The conservation of energy has nothign to do with this debate. We know energy and matter are interchangeable though experiment and observation. However, entropy does disprove the big bang succinctly. Intelligent design is one of the most falsifiable theories in science. All you have to do is prove one natural phenomenon or thing in the universe lacks an intelligent design or indicated a lack thereof.. GOOD LUCK

I believe in the context that I am presenting this thread , the definition is fairly loose due to the nature of the issue! Namely looking for evidence of beings above human . However I am saying that if some form of behaviour , can be seen to exist, with evidence. Then this would indeed represent some form of Heirachy. So to that end , I considering the three levels to be ( not all creatures ) but specifically :- Spirit Beings Human Beings Gold Fish Beings ONLY Taking one of the major attributes, of this PARTICULAR Defined HEIRACHY. I am currently considering the desire and activity of CROWDING. Clearly as previously proved with evidence GOLDFISH can be seen to CROWD. Also HUMANS notoriously crowd. This current desire to communicate via the internet, is a current evidence of CROWD. So evidence CROWDING from the Spirit realm would / should establish the HEIRACHY. . If that is proven , if only loosely , further investigation WOULD produce insight into the activity and nature of SPIRIT BEINGS. If only a start ! Mike