# All Activity

1. Past hour
2. ## Thought Experiments

It is true that scientific theories are contingent and always subject to change with new evidence. However, there comes a point when there is so much evidence for a theory it is almost impossible to see how it could be wrong (see, for example, the theory of evolution by natural selection). The Big Bang model / general relativity fall into this category. There are very few theories in the history of science that have actually turned out to be completely wrong. Geocentrism was one. Phlogiston another and the steady state universe a third. I struggle to think of any others. Even Newtonian gravity, which has been superseded by GR does not fall into this category. It is still good enough for many (most) purposes. Then you would have to provide a mathematical model that is consistent with all the evidence and produces equally good or better predictions than GR. Unless you can do that, I don't think your (unspecified) conclusions are likely to be worth much. I don't believe that is true. One of the reasons that the scientific method has evolved to what it is today is to eliminate, as far as practical, the various biases introduced by the human mind. Hence double-blind trials, etc. Maybe you should start another thread in the Speculations forum where you present this new theory. I don't see how this can work (but it will be interesting to see what you suggest as the "bottom layer"). For example, there are various suggestions that space-time and quantum theory (lets call them A) are emergent from some lower level theory (lats call that B). So, in he world everything in A is explained as being a result of B. But now we can ask, "why B" and so we look for some underlying theory (C) which explains that. And then we ask "why is C the way it is" and so we look for D and the E and then ... I cannot imagine how that can ever bottom out (except by saying "God", but that is just a way of stopping any further enquiry). All our experience so far seems to be that each better theory is more complicated than the previous. I see no reason why a theory of everything should be simple. That seems like wishful thinking. Why should the universe be easy for a random ape on a small planet on the unfashionable side of the galaxy? That depends on what you mean by "real". If it is the best, and currently only, explanation we have, does that make it real? Is the Newtonian "force" of gravity real? Or did it used to be real but isn't any longer? Until you define what you mean by "real" and how it can be tested, the statement is fairly meaningless. We can only know what our senses and measurements tell us. That may or may not be the same as "reality". They tell us that the universe behaves exactly as if space-time were a real thing. Thats as close as we can ever get to saying something is real, as far as I am concerned. That is an argument from incredulity or ignorance. The fact that you don't understand how GR works, doesn't make it wrong. I have heard the same claim hundreds of times from different people with wildly different ideas (and in some cases, wild ideas). They may say the "truth" is vortices or string or aliens or god or their own brain or ... In all cases, they are absolutely convinced that they, uniquely, have had the vision and insight to find The Truth. None of them can offer any evidence why we should believe any one of them and not the others. I somehow doubt you can either. But I am always open minded to see what evidence people can provide. OK. So are you going to tell us what this amazing theory is, or just keep making empty boasts about it?
3. ## Thought Experiments

The next step is to actually test this notion by making specific predictions and see if they hold true. As in, do science. People making assertions that they have uncovered the secrets of the universe are a dime a dozen. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
4. ## Thought Experiments

I really do appreciate the offer but I'm kind of busy at the moment. I think I will wait and take the class when it is taught in school.
5. Today
6. ## Thought Experiments

This is a challenge for me, what do you do if you have realised how the universe works, billions of people all over the planet believing different things, how do you face them and say "look, this is the truth about the universe and in five years times this will be taught in schools." Religion has no chance, not in the light of the truth, to use their terminology. I am asserting I am have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. It has taken me a long time to come to terms with this, but there is no denying, I have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. The truth is powerful, in five years times what I share with you on this forum will be taught in schools (children will probably know it before school) and religion will be largely dead. The world will, I believe, unite around this scientific breakthrough and celebrate by introducing a new global calander, starting from year 1. To me, this is inevitable, I have no scientific career to ruin so I am not bothered if I am proved wrong, I really have nothing to lose. But if you want to know the truth and I am willing to share it, you have to come to terms with eternity, there is no creator, but the universe itself is infinite and immortal. It is different to how it is portrayed by science currently, but it is perfectly complimentary. Its a sort of third way, different to science and religion, but encompassing questions and answers from both. There won't even be a discussion on whether the universe has a design or not, it has a design, and I am going to reveal, slowly, but with out a doubt, surely. It is for the best.
7. ## What makes an animal superior?

It depends what you consider an animal, I am strictly speaking about individual species, but I see your point.

Quite.
9. ## Thought Experiments

They do not pop into and out of existence They are not physical, material things. The laws always apply, even if there isn't anything there to follow them at a particular time and place. It's about both. It's both. Any physics explanation is going to involve mathematical abstraction.
10. ## Thought Experiments

The thing is, once the evidence said the sun revolved around the earth (because thats what looked like happened). As for not believing, history tells us we have gotten it wrong before and current affairs suggest there is disagreement on what exactly goes on. The reason I think I am on to something is that I look at the 'evidence' and come to a different conclusion. The same evidence is there for everyone, its how we look at it is what is important, history teaches us that. So looking at the evidence isn't enough, you have to take into account our minds. And this is the beauty of what I am putting forward, the basic explanation can be understood by a child. It is also final, in that doesn't need to explain how it came to be, its final, its immortal, the universe is immortal, the laws of the universe are immortal, you can't understand the universe until you grasp infinity, then it all becomes clear. If I am right, then we have gotten to the most basic and fundamental root of the universe, a set of super laws that underly everything. The universe was never 'created', it does not have a creator or designer, but I would argues that is does have a design and the design is sublime. Then if that's the answer you are getting, maybe its not the right one, with what I am suggesting, is that you get to a bottom layer in which those questions actually get answers. I mean, imagine what a theory of everything might look like, I am sure you are creative, what qualities must it have? Surely, it will be straight forward to understand, its not magic right, there is some practical way to explain it all, something that clears up all the mysteries and something everyone can agree on. And they agree on it because after reflection it is obvious, to quote John Wheeler: “Some principle uniquely right and compelling must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way that it could not possibly be otherwise.” If a respected scientist can say something like this, I think its possible. Yes, you can play with stuff you know, research interesting and worthy topics, but surely these are still the important questions, its the mystery that intrigues the best of us, how, why. How the universe has the same laws everywhere is actually explained in what I am suggesting. But it took me time to adjust to what was at the time, was a new reality.
11. ## Anti-evolution and un-natural selection

This article might be a good place to start looking at how human evolution is currently unfolding. I'm surprised to see longevity is apparently being selected for, perhaps due to later childbirth age in the population (the study only looked at US and UK populations). Why the talk about cosmic rays? I thought its contribution was negligible given DNA repair mechanisms and that sexual reproduction prevents the accumulation of mutations. Type 1 diabetes might be becoming more prevalent along with its associated genes in populations (i've not checked). You could call this UN-natural if you want - but really it would just natural selection at work; but here the environment, and hence selection pressures, have changed because of something humans have done. Is bacterial anti-biotic resistance UN-natural selection too?

That very much depends on the quality of the arguments. So you should compare their arguments. Historians do know a lot of how the 'story was managed'. They know about the Christian believes that were marked later as heresy by orthodox Christianity. That helps in interpreting older sources. Inspired by Dan Brown? The truth is, of course, that the religious message from Paul greatly differs from that of Jesus himself, according to the Synoptic gospels. The short form of Jesus' message: be prepared for the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God here on earth by keeping to the Law (the Jewish laws of course), and live a highly moral live. Those who do can enter the Kingdom, those who don't will be expelled. Short form of Paul: you explicitly should not follow the Law of the Jews, but believe that Jesus the Messiah has come, died, and was resurrected: then you can enter the coming Kingdom of God. So in my opinion, the bomb you can lay under modern Christendom is showing this discrepancy in the accepted, 'inspired' books of the bible, is much stronger than trying to convince it that Jesus never existed. As a bonmot says: modern Christendom is the religion of Paul about Jesus; Jesus himself taught one of the apocalyptic versions of the Jewish religion. So Christendom should be called Pauldom. If we really did not know, then why do you think it is a stretch? Why would the accepted reconstruction, as Ehrman presents, of some of the aspects of Jesus' real life not be the interpretation with the least of stretch?
13. ## Anti-evolution and un-natural selection

What you are describing is not "un-natural evolution". You are assuming that having toes is preferable to not having toes and therefor not having toes is un-natural evolution. That isn't how evolution works. Different things in different environments give individuals a greater chance to reproduce. That is how survival of the fittest works. It is the fitness within an environment which matters. At present in various Human populations physical characteristics and health are not anymore selected for than are personality and financial characteristics are. Evolution doesn't move species in a direction of constant linear improvement. Species move towards whatever works for the given environment at the moment. Sometimes that means a species is better suited if its bigger stronger faster while other times smaller and slower has more success. In some human populations today having toes vs not having toes isn't meaningful enough to impact reproduction. Do you consider male pattern balding an example of un-natural evolution?
14. ## Anti-evolution and un-natural selection

Oh, FFS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray Mainly originating outside the Solar System Maybe you are confused by the fact that the solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field affect cosmic rays.
15. ## Anti-evolution and un-natural selection

Mention of Cloud Chamber was just to learn you that majority of primary cosmic rays have origin at the Sun. You claimed "they don’t originate from the sun.".. Anybody who has CC knows you said nonsense basing just on frequency of visible traces in day and night.
16. ## Anti-evolution and un-natural selection

I meant your cloud chamber is irrelevant. And is kinetic energy the most important factor when it comes to mutagenesis? (I have no idea.) Anyway. Enough of this sidetrack. The causes of mutations (where radioactivity plays a minor part) is really not very relevant to the OP's questions.
17. ## Anti-evolution and un-natural selection

"Food and drink"... how do you think "food and drink" became radioactive?! It's Carbon C-14.. which is created by cosmic rays in reactions: $p^+ + p^+ \rightarrow p^+ + n^0 + \pi^+$ $_7^{14}N + n^0 \rightarrow _6^{14}C + p^+$ It's very relevant, as they have the largest kinetic energies from the all radiation sources.. I just pointed out you made mistake saying they're not from the Sun! While Cloud Chamber is just to show, they're from the Sun (but you have no bloody idea about it).
18. ## RLC Circuit and LED

Surely this is off topic? But I also asked you a question that was on topic. The point of my questions is to help you learn. It doesn't matter if you get it right or wrong or know or don't know the answer. Just say something. I very much doubt that Wikipedia showed just this network with a current flowing. Certainly the issue is worth discussing since it will introduce and help you distinguish between steady state (which would be a sustained oscillation) and transients, which are all that is possible in that limited network, assuming it has a switch. Remember I said don't forget the switch?
19. ## Anti-evolution and un-natural selection

Which is irrelevant. (I know you are obsessed with cloud chambers as the answer to everything, and you bring them up in nearly every thread.) From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_gateway/radiation/radioisotopesrev1.shtml So cosmic rays account for about 12% of background radiation (depending where you are, of course).
20. ## Thought Experiments

1. That doesn't really mean anything. And there is no real science behind it. It sounds like a journalistic extrapolation from what we know. 2. This is a hypothesis based on theoretical ideas for which there is zero evidence. So not worth worrying about at the moment. 3. This was thought to be likely (because of gravity) until it was found that the rate of expansion is accelerating. As for "not believing the big bang", that is a rather silly thing to say. Science is not about belief but about what the evidence shows or, more accurately, which models work best. Currently, the Big Bang model is the best model we have for the evolution of the universe. It is supported by overwhelming evidence so it seems unlikely to be completely wrong. However, there are still many unknowns and possible variations on the basic model so the details may change as we discover more. I think those are useful questions, but I'm not sure that they can ever be answered. Or at least, not fully. So choosing an answer might be down to personal preference.Or there might be different answers for different laws. It may be that, in some cases, other laws (or different values for fundamental constants) make the existence of a universe (or at least one populated by intelligent organisms) impossible. For example, is seems that only a universe with 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension is stable: But then, I suppose, that just raises the question why the other combinations are not stable. And that is the problem with these sort of non-science questions. Any answer you get just prompts another level of "Yes, but why ..."

It's clearly possible for an equally informed historian to look at the same evidence and come to the opposite conclusion. Which is Ten Oz's point. That the evidence is crap. While I've seen people give the opposite view to people like Carrier, I haven't seen his facts negated, or his arguments thoroughly rebutted. The fact that you are reduced to arguing for the consensus, instead of demolishing the "negative" view with facts shows just how weak the factual basis for the real Jesus. There might have been one, there might not. Given the way that the story was "managed" in the early church, anything's possible. I saw a documentary on Mary Magdalene the other day, and one historian even made the argument that the early church was started around HER, and she was written out, and replace with a man, because the people who had got control no longer wanted a religion based around a woman. While it's a stretch, it's not an impossible stretch, because we just don't know. The past is too murky when it comes to religion. Here in Britain, we have the legend of King Arthur and his Round Table. With complicated stories about his birth and his love life etc. Nobody knows if it had a real man at the root. And that's from only 1300 odd years ago. About the time that Allah was yakking a load of rot to Mohammed. If someone had given Arthur a god sidekick, instead of a magician, the world might now be a different place.
22. ## RLC Circuit and LED

Lol why do you think that? Anyways here is a question, how is memory stored in a transistor?
23. ## RLC Circuit and LED

I feel you would blow up your computer/laptop motherboard in the same day as you started playing with Arduino seriously... BTW, my code to control servo with microswitches: #include <Servo.h> Servo servo; static const int pinTurnLeft = 0; static const int pinTurnRight = 1; static const int pinServo = 2; void setup() { pinMode( pinTurnLeft, INPUT ); pinMode( pinTurnRight, INPUT ); servo.attach( pinServo ); } int angle = 0; int angle_step = 1; // krok void loop() { if( digitalRead( pinTurnLeft ) != LOW ) angle -= angle_step; else if( digitalRead( pinTurnRight ) != LOW ) angle += angle_step; servo.write( angle ); // optional: delay( miliseconds ); }
24. ## RLC Circuit and LED

I feel like Arduino is something people can use without having to know much about circuits, though its a good thing to help understand the connection between software and hardware.