coffeesippin

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

 I didn't say anti gravity voids...I said anti matter voids, which you mentioned. Now again, where are these anti matter voids?

And of course it is still only hypothetical...no experimental and/or observational data, just "could be from".

Again GR is not in question as you would like to imply, simply continually being further tested in line with further observations. If it faails these, then that's big big news.

Your other nonsense is ignored.

If you read posts instead of just scanning you will see they are one and the same.  I told you exactly where one of them is.  The url is there and some details.  Contrary to my first opinion I also reported your slander and libel but only after you called my request for you to abstain from libel and slander "nonsense."   I'm also going to see if it's allowable to block your comments, as you do NOT read what others post, you are NOT interested in new science, and your frequent use of the word "nonsense" describing other opinions is not tolerable.  

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

GR is not really in question yet, rather tests, research and data are continually being checked, to determine whether GR stands up to the further more precise observations....That's science, that's the scientific method and so far it is doing its job admirable.. 

And I had thought I had mentioned it somewhere, while GR may support a universe with no BB, the BB anyway fits hand in glove with GR....and the important thing to consider, is if we did find any observational evidence validating a "no BB scenario" it would I envisage be an Oscillating type scenario, and one of the theories that was in competition with the BB and Steady State in the early fifties...And also just as obviously if this "Oscillating" sometimes now called the Big Bounce was shown to be nore likely the the context of the BB we now accept, it would in actual fact entail a BB anyway, probably a number of BB's as the bounces reoccurred. But again, the Oscillating  and Steady State fell out of favour  due to the continued evidence supporting the BB, until the CMBR was discovered, which saw the complete demise of the other two.

What do you mean by anti matter voids? Where are these anti matter voids?

The forming of the spider web like filiments, is simply gravity over smaller scales acting on galaxies etc, while the overall expansion acts over large scales. Again simply put, the BB still holds pride of place as the theory describing most accurately the evolution of the space, time, matter and energy up to the present day. 

The singularity that you speak of is simply the region where our laws  of physics and GR break down...the quantum/Planck realm, not any singularity of any infinite qualities.

If you don't know where the anti-gravity anti-matter Voids are you did not reach much that I presented.  An anti-gravity Void is providing significant propulsion for our local group of galaxies.  Anti gravity arises from anti-matter. That's contained in the information.  I'm totally surprised you hadn't heard of them.  GR is in question all over the planet.  But I WON'T get into that because I'll be accused of hijacking my own thread and suspended or banned.  I'm onto you BeeCee.    I'm actually considering reporting you for your accusation against Jordan .. that's slander, in print its libel.  However .. I'll just as you to abstain further criminal accusation when discussing with me.   You could clear the air and enhance your reputation by apologizing for that one.  

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120215-dark-energy-antimatter-physics-alternate-space-science/

General Relativity, while questioned in other times and places, is not questioned in this post, but rather this post shows GR SUPPORTS itself with NO BB.   In question is whether Big Bang happened, that question necessary for discussion on the alternative of Quantum Fluctuation seeding simultaneously across spacetime which would account for the much more mature universe which we see across the space of itself than BB suggests is possible.  Quantum Fluctuations themselves seeding stars is a part of the theory of Inflation, so should not be considered strange appearing outside of a BB scenario.    

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/there-was-no-big-bang-radical-theory-of-the-universe-states          Physicist Juliano César Silva Neves hails from University of Campinas’s Mathematics, Statistics & Scientific Computation Institute (IMECC-UNICAMP), in Brazil.      https://www.ime.unicamp.br/en/graduate/mathematics      http://www.brazilmonitor.com/index.php/2017/12/03/brazilian-scientist-silva-neves-i-believe-the-big-bang-never-happened/     

"For instance, there is way more isotopic homogeneity in the universe, say in the cosmic microwave background, than should exist and that’s been difficult to account for."   

"Today, we know the theory of general relativity permits a non-singular cosmology, with no Big Bang, at least in theory.”   

"Where Bardeen introduced a scale to explain the goings on inside a regular black hole, Neves and his postdoctoral supervisor, Prof. Alberto Vazques Saa, introduced a “scale factor,” into general relativity equations, to explain the rate at which the universe is expanding. Once the scale factor is introduced, the singularity and the Big Bang disappear. Universal expansion works just fine without them."   

1989 Great Wall of Galaxies (Geller and Huchra) Margaret Geller of Harvard Smithsonian Centre for Astrophyhsics, “The size of the structure indicates that in the [present theories .... something is really wrong that makes a difference.” Boston Globe Nov. 17, 1989. “No known force could produce a structure this big in the time since the universe was formed.”

     Admitted: 1989 is almost 30 years ago, and many new things have been discovered since then, INCLUDING the action that cosmic voids move groups of galaxies including our own.  THAT force is the now KNOWN force that COULD have produced a structure the size of the Great Wall, especially in the time available to the new speculation of simultaneous cosmic seeding across spacetime, with no BB.  "Lambas and his colleagues compared a simulation of the cosmic web with 245 cosmic voids that they identified from data compiled by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, a large ground-based survey of the heavens. The team found that the voids move at 300–400 kilometres per second above and beyond their motion associated with the Universe’s expansion." 

On 11/26/2018 at 2:50 PM, beecee said:

DE could well be described as anti-gravity, as it is acting against gravity that wants to collapse/attract all the matter/energy in the universe, against the  DE that is acting to expand the spacetime between galaxies but only having success over large scales. Certainly not though any envisaging of all of us floating off the planet along with everything else not tied down.

We have many scientific papers based purely on hypotheticals or science that  we are as yet unable to actually experiment with or observe. Jordan's paper is one such hypothetical. Einstein if you recall did not get his Nobel for relativity....why you may ask? "Einstein's failure to win a Nobel until 1921, and that prize's not being awarded for his work on relativity, is generally ascribed to these factors:

1. Lack of sufficient experimental proof for the theories at the time (some distrust in the early results on the precession of Mercury, and the Eddington starlight observations).
2. Failure by some members of the committee to understand relativity
3. anti-Semitism
4. skepticism generally about the utility of relativity, and whether it was physics at all.

If these factors were in fact the reason that the relativity work did not garner a prize in 1921, why didn't the relativity work merit a second Nobel prize after, say 1945? Surely the work on cyclotrons and the bomb provided firm experimental support for the validity of the theory, and by then the overall utility would have been understood as well".

https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6106/why-didnt-einstein-win-a-second-nobel-prize-for-relativity

A charge of anti-Semitism against Jordan is rebuked easily by the fact that Einstein nominated Jordan TWICE for the Nobel, and they remained in touch after the war, along with the other QM founders.  While Jordan had been a member of the Nazi party, so were the obvious large majority of Germans who elected Hitler.  Your comment is the ONLY one I have read anywhere accusing Jordan of anti-Semiticism.    "Pascual Jordan's colleagues — Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, Fermi, Dirac, and Wigner — were all awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. But not Jordan. He was nominated twice in the 1920's by Einstein, but Heisenberg and Born considered Jordan more of a mathematician than a physicist — hurting his chances."    https://www.google.com/search?q=Einstein+nominates+Pascual+Jordan+for+Nobel&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=Einstein+nominates+Pascual+Jordan+for+Nobel&aqs=chrome..69i57.12735j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

     Why wasn't Jordan nominated after the war?   His 'stars from nothing' formula, which I repeat was so compulsive that when Einstein first heard it he abruptly stop walking across a street even though oncoming traffic had to stop to avoid hitting him .. the theory directly contradicted the need for a singularity.  And now with expanding anti-gravity-anti-matter voids swelling out and pushing matter together into the filaments (and walls, etc) we have no need for BB as the propulsive mechanism for Expansion .. seemingly without negating GR, whether true or false.

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

I believe its time someone took an Aspirin and had a good lie down before he/she blows a  valve!!! 

You believe?  What's a statement of faith doing in a science forum!!!   And if you're referring to a mod/admin you may be correct, but know well and truly, BeeCee, that I'm a man, and one like you will not meet often at all.  Feel yourself fortunate to have met me.  Consider well EVERYTHING I have said to you.  I'll probably be banned permanently very soon.  Remember I cared and told the truth.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I used bible verses to relay a thought to you in a language I knew you’d understand. 

In return, you blast me with a bunch of preachy evangelical PMs, accuse me of being a sock puppet of moon man and zap, and now have the gall to suggest I’m being bigoted and hateful?

Your personal flavor of woo is not due any special deference or unearned respect. The challenges to your ideas have been kind and focused. Your replies, however? Anything but  

Perhaps faith alone is not a good enough reason to accept something as true. Maybe it is for you, but just because the rest of us don’t share in your silliness doesn’t mean we’re bigoted. 

Btw - Philosophy is not the same as science. Words have meanings. Anyone who appreciates philosophy should recognize that. 

Your one phrase sums up your lack of education, vacancy of knowledge, respect for opinion and freedom, and absolute lack of clarity of thought:  "... but just because the rest of us don’t share in your silliness doesn’t mean we’re bigoted."   By, 'the rest of us" you indicate you speak for the entire human race, how may billions is that?   It implies you have delusions of grandeur on such as scale you place yourself on a pinnacle high about the rest of humanity, speaking for them as if one voice.  What would you like for this spokesman position?  Surely money couldn't buy it?  Worship?  You want humanity to worship you?  Perhaps that's fitting for a few, but surely not any on a science forum, surely!!

In which we propose the Quantum Fluctuation as proposed by Pascual Jordan seeded the universe with stars, all else arising from those; and Anti-Gravity Anti-Matter Void Expansion powers the expansion and increasing rate of expansion of the universe.

https://phys.org/news/2012-01-repulsive-gravity-alternative-dark-energy.html

anti gravity voids

(PhysOrg.com) -- When scientists discovered in 1998 that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, the possibility that dark energy could explain the observation was intriguing. But because there has been little progress in figuring out exactly what dark energy is, the idea has since become more of a problem than a solution for some scientists. One physicist, Massimo Villata of the National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) in Pino Torinese, Italy, describes dark energy as “embarrassing,” saying that the concept is an  ad hoc  element to standard cosmology and is devoid of any physical meaning. Villata is one of many scientists who are looking for new explanations of the Universe’s accelerating expansion that involve some form of repulsive gravity. In this case, the repulsive gravity could stem from antimatter hiding in voids.

“Some people may think that my analysis of general relativity predicting antigravity is not correct or appropriate,” he added. “In this case, a further, definitive test is mentioned in my last paper: the antigravitational lensing effect. In principle, if we had a good 3D map of galaxy clusters lying beyond the voids, it would be relatively easy to analyze whether some of them have shapes squeezed around the line of sight, which would mean that they are aligned with large concentrations of  antimatter  in the intervening void. But the problem is that there is another concurrent effect, which strongly distorts the distribution of galaxies in the radial direction, due to the peculiar motions affecting the redshift measurements: the finger-of-god effect, which stretches the shape of clusters along the line of sight. It is thus very difficult to distinguish whether a cluster already severely stretched by this effect is further thinned by antigravitational lensing.”

Pascual Jordan Biography

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Jordan_Pascual.html

A star may be made from nothing: “If a star's negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy.”

That Jordan never won a Nobel Prize in physics is a puzzle. Some blame his inability to give elegant lectures because of a stutter; some blame his pro-Nazi politics or his support, after World War II, for a German nuclear weapons program; some blame the fact that  Born  misplaced Jordan's  1925  manuscript in which  Fermi-Dirac  statistics were first presented, thus depriving the modest Jordan of his rightful claim to priority over  Pauli. But the fact remains that his contributions to the development of modern quantum theory were as fundamental and far-reaching as those of many whose achievements were recognized with a Nobel Prize. It was Jordan, more than anyone else, who developed a mathematically elegant formulation of matrix mechanics. It was Jordan who went on to consolidate matrix mechanics with  Dirac's alternative operator calculus and  Erwin Schrödinger's wave-mechanical formulation in the comprehensive formalism known as statistical transformation theory. It was Jordan who did more than anyone other than  Dirac  to inaugurate the program of quantum field theory, in ways such as developing the second quantization approach and being the first to discover the problem of divergences in quantum field theory. And it was Jordan who, along with  von Neumann  and  Eugene Wigner, was developing more abstract algebraic frameworks for quantum mechanics. Not without reason has Jordan been described as "the unsung hero among the creators of quantum mechanics".

Massimo Villata .. anti-gravity voids

https://phys.org/news/2011-04-antigravity-dark-energy-universe-expansion.html

Void pushing Milky Way

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-void-pushes-milky-way-3001201723/ Now,  using the Cosmicflows-2 catalog of galaxies, Yehuda Hoffman (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) and colleagues have mapped out the movements of more than 8,000 galaxies and confirmed that, yes, the two titans that determine how local galaxies flow through the cosmic web are Shapley and this single, as-yet unmapped void.

Voids are structures with a 'shell' and not simply empty space. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990MNRAS.247..473M

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vast-cosmic-voids-merge-like-soap-bubbles/

Lambas and his colleagues compared a simulation of the cosmic web with 245 cosmic voids that they identified from data compiled by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, a large ground-based survey of the heavens. The team found that the voids move at 300–400 kilometres per second above and beyond their motion associated with the Universe’s expansion.

cosmic voids offer a key advantage, says van de Weygaert. Because they contain so little matter, their physics is relatively simple and dominated by dark energy—the  mysterious entity that is revving up the rate at which the Universe is expanding. 

"If a star's negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy" then a star will have arisen from nothing.   

https://www.google.com/search?q=pascual+jordan&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=pascual+jordan&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59l3j69i60j0.3405j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Dude. When I asked you not to PM me, that didn’t mean I wanted you to send me multiple PMs with a bunch of evangelical silliness. 

‘Again. Please. Stop

Then you stop bring up the topic of evangelism.  Evangelism is preaching and is NOT allowed on this forum.  Zapatos is iNow ..inow is Zapatos.  How many others are you?  Modman too?  

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Stop already!

Stop what?  Stop replying to your comments to me?  WHY do you comment to me if you DO NOT want a comment FROM me?  Surely that is NOT logical, reasonable or scientific in ANY branch of science.  This is a science forum, ZIM  Please stick to science.

For all to see .. Zapatos and INow bring up bible scriptures tempting me to reply to them to bring accusation on my head; accuse me of lying and preaching, and it is the administrator Iodine who sends ME the warning about breaking the rules?  Yes, for all to see.  Nothing logical or reasonable in that, is there?  Nothing scientific in ANY branch of science, not even philosophy it is is counted a branch of science here.  When does a nice friendly discussion turn into such bigoted hatred?

Just now, zapatos said:

Please stop coffeesippin. Preaching is preaching, whether you try to hide it from the mods or not. And it is still against the rules.

Dear Mod .. Zapatos is posting private message on the forum.  He is quoting bible scripture even after I reminded him it is not encouraged or allowed.  He is accusing me of breaking the rules when I'm not. I suggest you suspend him as you suspended me to remind him of the rules of this fourm.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

What does Jesus think about you lying? Are you trying to paint yourself as persecuted to garner sympathy? Playing the martyr will get you nowhere. You are barking up the wrong tree on this site pal.

 

Ah yes, bring up the name that is forbidden to be used.  Barking trees?  You believe in destroying nature do you?  Or do your ears hear things others don't?   I think everyone has the right, nay, the need, to be found lying in bed.  You might find it more encouraging to the brain to do more of it.  Rest is essential to good health, doctors say.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Please don’t. I have no intention of reading it or replying. 

Shit... too late

For all to see .. a man who thinks to have the last word.  Tempting me to "preach" so I'll get thrown out.  Ha!

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

I advise you  more closely study James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5, and Luke 14:11. To really drive home my point, please enjoy some time with Proverbs 11:2  

 

Even better, Proverbs 27:2

If I had written that exact same thing I'd have been suspended or banned.  I suspect you're a mod sock puppet.  I'll send you a private message too, so I can't be banned for preaching. 

Just now, zapatos said:

Are you an expert on Christianity or merely a pompous ass? Are you suggesting that some people who are baptized and believe in Christ are Christians, but others who are baptized and believe in Christ are NOT Christians? Are you familiar with the fallacy No True Scotsman?

I'm an expert on Christianity.  If I say any more even if I say E=MC2 I'll be accused of preaching, and whether it's true of not I was just suspended for three days because of it.  So I'll send you a private message.  

If ocean plastic cleanup can be made substantially $$$$ profitable it will be done.  Until then it's a no-brainer to just let it destroy the oceans.

4 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Yes.

Fishing Nets Account for 46 Percent of All Ocean Plastic.

From my knowledge:

1. Plastic pollution of the seas come principally from those 10 rivers. None is in Europe or the U.S.

2. Plastic is recyclable. In theory, it is a fantastic product, you can use it again & again & again. Throwing it away is pure madness: it is throwing money away.

3. The main problem is about single use plastics. At this moment if you want to erase totally plastic from our civilisation you must erase almost everything (cars, mobile phones, computers, tv's, clothes, shoes,  building insulations, table tops, a.s.o.).

4. Replacement products for plastics are the ones we used in the 19th century: wood, leather, stone, ceramics, fur, etc.

I expect you don't want a world like that back.

Interesting map.  It wouldn't have a White Supremacist as author, would it?

"Grave doubts?"   As if the discovery (or non discovery) was a living creature, or even human which/who had died?  This is another example of many scientists taking themselves far too seriously.  Among the top professionals I'm sure they'll never have set the discovery up as anything except a possible occurrence which will take a lot more confirmation and many more occurrences to set on a table as edible.

For sure there is neither free speech nor general advancement in science here.  People presenting the latest science are labelled trolls and banned, so I have both scientific and spiritual objections to the quality of moderation on this forum.  A lot of the mod decisions are bigoted and prejudiced, or made with little knowledge of recent advancements in science, made with little attempt to read what is actually written or why it is written, the bigotry and prejudice manipulating the thoughts of the mods. I also suspect some mods use sock puppetry.  That's all I'll say, except that the bigotry and prejudice is so strong it has obviously been allowed to continue with administrator approval, so no amount of evidence presented is going to change things, and I won't waste my time presenting any.

On 11/23/2018 at 12:05 PM, Itoero said:

People that believe in the Christian god and Jesus+miracles are defined as Christian. All Christians believe in miracles concerning God/Jesus which go in against bio evolution.

 

Muslims believe in God, Allah is the Arabic name for God among Arabic Muslims and Arabic Christians.  Muslims believe in Jesus but not as the Son of God, as they believe Allah God cannot have a son.  They believe Jesus is the greatest prophet, greater than Mohammed, because Jesus did miracles whereas Mohammed was a mere Messenger, Muslims believe Jesus is the greatest prophet, greater than Mohammed, and is also the Messiah who will return and destroy the present anti-Christ world empire, but will then teach the earth's population the truth.  Question any practicing Muslim about those things.  

On 11/23/2018 at 5:01 PM, Moontanman said:

I've never talked to a christian that felt that way but I've talked to quite a few that think that the validity of science in general and evolution in particular is meaningless where their beliefs are concerned. I am in the middle of a huge family fight over this stuff, I've been told the only prerequisite for going to heaven is that you believe Jesus is your lord and savior. What science says about reality is simply not important enough to even consider. 

To me this is weird, intellectual dishonesty of epic proportions at the very least. 

I thought being an atheist would at least keep me out of it but all it does is make me a lightning rod...  

Science is absolutely 100% NOT important in the least to faith in Christ and belief in the Word of God.   Science is important to me because I love the goals of true science, to seek and find.  I find true science totally supports the bible, and the bible totally supports true science. I find it impossible to fill my hours simply with prayer, reading scripture, volunteering, and other aspects of Christianity and faith in God, so I put in time with science.  Are you a lightning rod in your family because of your atheism of your verbosity against the idea of God?  Of all the people on this forum, Moon, you seem to be the most verbose regarding God, and I don't use the word 'verbose' in a negative way.

On 11/23/2018 at 12:22 PM, zapatos said:

Give me a break. I was a Christian for a long time. There was no part of Evolution I refused to accept simply because of my faith. I suspect that in the entire world you will have a difficult time finding two Christians who are in complete agreement in their faith.

Were you a Christian, or a member of a mere member of a denomination through birth or social preference?  Had you had the Personal revelation that the bible is true, or did you even have a bible in the pew?  

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Sadly, that's not what it is usually interpreted as meaning

 

Easy answer- he doesn't exist.
which, thankfully, brings us back to the topic.

I don't want you to look ignorant of possibilities, so I'll try to persuade you to change your "Easy answer - he doesn't exist" to 'In my opinion he doesn't exist.'  

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Sadly, that's not what it is usually interpreted as meaning

 

Easy answer- he doesn't exist.
which, thankfully, brings us back to the topic.

21 hours ago, Strange said:

I posted this earlier in the thread, it might be of interest in case coffeesippin missed it :

 

I don't have to read it to believe it, I've been saying that all along.  But I will try to find time to read it.

49 minutes ago, Itoero said:

For Christians it's impossible to acknowledge all scientific evidence concerning biological evolution.

Human 'history' is part of this biological evolution. All Christians believe in miracles that happened in biological evolution,  the miracles go in against scientific evidence.

If someone says he believes in evolution then that doesn't mean he acknowledges all scientific evidence.

Religious faith and bio evolution are not in conflict because religious faith is an evolutionary trait.

Not all scientists acknowledge all scientific evidence regardless of branch.  There are feverish debates and even hatreds among scientists, the history of science shows that clearly (Hoyle was an example mentioned on the forum in the last day or two or today woe unto me if I ever get it straight) calling other scientists liars and frauds.   

Your first statement is far to broad to have real meaning .. how many Christians do you know personally?   "The projection begins with 2010 statistics when "Christianity was by far the world's largest religion, with an estimated 2.2 billion adherents, nearly a third (31%) of all 6.9 billion people on Earth. Islam was second, with 1.6 billion adherents, or 23% of the global population.”   Furthermore, aren't scientists still looking for the missing link?  http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes   Is it still missing because it never was?

I can't see why biology has anything to do with religious faith.  One is flesh .. the other is spirit.  The mind may be born and evolve and die, but the spirit is eternal.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

There may be a bit of oxygen in the Mars atmosphere, and CO2 as well. But there's plenty lacking in life support. Warmth is the first to come to mind. The AVERAGE temperature on Mars is colder than the average winter temperature at the South Pole. And you won't find large life forms thriving there. In fact Mars is far more hostile than Antarctica in winter, because it doesn't have weather blowing in from milder climes. 

It also gets about half the sunlight, but far more harmful radiation, like cosmic rays and solar wind, because it doesn't have an equivalent to the Earth's magnetic field. or thick atmosphere. And there are no oceans beneath the sand. There's ice, lots of it, but no liquid oceans.

The chances of big animals that don't need oxygen or warmth existing on Mars are near enough zero.

"Differing in situ values have been reported for the average temperature on Mars, with a common value being −63 °C (210 K; −81 °F). Surface temperatures may reach a high of about 20 °C (293 K; 68 °F) at noon, at the equator, and a low of about −153 °C (120 K; −243 °F) at the poles."   

68F is PLENTY warm.  There is also plenty of water beneath the surface. Oxygen can be taken from water as fish do here on earth.  Hibernation is one way creatures survive 'killer' temperatures on earth, why not on Mars?  How where the 'blueberries' on Mars formed?  Ever seen rabbit poop?

Silicon life forms would defend against radiation.  https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/silicon-based-life-may-be-more-just-science-fiction-n748266  

What is easily possible regarding life in extreme environments:   "During Antarctica’s winter – a frigid night four months long – male Emperor Penguins huddle by the hundreds in the snow. The male penguins guard the eggs and keep them warm. Each male penguin puts his egg on his feet. He covers it with a fold of skin. In this way, he keeps it warm at about 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) while the outside temperatures can drop well below -30 degrees F (?35 degrees" C).  https://earthsky.org/earth/male-penguin-eggs    These are warm blooded mammals flourishing in those temperatures.

Life below freezing:    Easy:  "Antarctic fish have antifreeze blood, but it might fill them with ice crystals over time. In the icy waters of the Antarctic, most of the native fish have special proteins in their blood that act like antifreeze. The proteins bind to ice crystals, keeping them small to prevent the formation of fish popsicles."   https://www.google.ca/search?q=antifreeze+in+fish&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA807CA807&oq=antifreeze+in+fish&aqs=chrome..69i57.7722j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Life's possibilities seem endless.  What size is big?  A dog?  A Blue Whale?  

15 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Badly.

My comment was that it would be silly to pretend that scientists act like children- rather than the other way round.

Children often act like scientists. They are notorious for asking "but why?" repeatedly. The ones who don't get that curiosity knocked out of them might grow up to do science.

It's interesting to note that one powerful force for stopping kids asking questions is to give meaningless answers like "He moves in mysterious ways" rather than honest ones like "I don't know".

'He moves in mysterious ways' sounds to me like encouragement to investigate those ways, it's a major reason I love science.  Most people enjoy a good mystery, billions of books have been sold on mystery.  And one of the most mysterious mysteries about God is why he allows a degenerate race like ours to continue when it is scientifically clear that the evils in it have destroyed billions of our own kind, are currently destroying the planet's capacity for life, littering space with debris.  The comment on littering space is not anti-scientific, it's like pollution on earth, we could pay for systems that would prevent it or remove it and convert it to productivity, but the profit is greater to flush it, prices of homes are lower if we flush it, taxes are lower if we flush it.  But that mystery is solved in that God is merciful.  I hope that is not considered as against the rules preaching, just an element of the discussion in answering your question.

Also, I thought we were in the topic of Einstein's and Hawking's God.

On 10/31/2018 at 7:54 AM, mistermack said:

What they are saying is that it's not visible. Not with the technology we have so far developed. That doesn't mean it's missing. 

If something is moving the long grass, it might still be a lion, even if you can't see the lion. You can detect it's presence. Same thing applies to stars. If something moves them, it's pretty certain that there's something there.

Good example, better than wind moving the grass.   And if it's a stranger to the life of lions, he probably won't know it's a lion.  But if the person is someone who has lived among lions for a long time, he will almost certainly know the difference between a lion moving the grass, and a jackal.   We've lived among the stars a long time, but we're still in danger of thinking it's a jackal when it could be a lion.  (I just googled, and Jackals can be a danger through rabies.  Good things stars don't carry rabies.)

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

I wish you had taken a little more time before misunderstanding my point.

Are you sure you aren't lumping neutral reactions in with the negative? I don't see a lot of negative responses to the idea of God on this site. What I see most of is neutral, waiting to be persuaded one way or the other by a preponderance of evidence. From what I've read from you, it seems like you think everything that isn't positive is negative.

I understand that neutral is not negative or positive, although how many variations of neutral, positive and negative are there in physics or in conviction?    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0959-5309/59/1/303  I wanted to use a bar magnet to demonstrate, but I began getting angry at my inability to understand the complexities  so chose that url instead, I hope it explains itself.  I'll look at it soon.     

My experience on this forum and others is that a bible believer like myself is most often assumed to be a flat earther, and that opinion prejudices many people of science to misread what I write, along with my intent in writing it.  Although I said earlier I have never met a flat earther, I had forgotten the one I met, a hard core flat earther, thinking we would be fried to dust if we passed through the Van Allen belt regardless of time or shielding in the belt, etc.   

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You're conveniently selective with your evidence. You obviously ignore the mountains of similar but opposite evidence. 

I see that kind of reasoning as a self-induced stupidity. Not born, but acquired. Sort of deliberate blindness. 

Your use of the word stupidity is not positive in any way.  Of course I'm selective with evidence, I support what I believe.  Can I present a mountain of evidence in either direction?

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

To be honest, what Einstein or Hawking thought is an irrelevant bit of gossipy history to me. If they were both staunch deists or theists, it wouldn't influence my thinking in the slightest. 

On the other hand, if the smelly old man in the library showed me a bit of genuine evidence for a god, I'd be highly interested. Still waiting. 

The mind is powerful, and with someone demonstrates his mind is used in powerful ways, that person has an effect on me, even though Hawking's last book stated 'There is no God,' his effect of even feeling the need to mention God strengthens my faith that there is. 

The smelly man wasn't old.  Probably middle aged.  He would probably take you into his home rather than allow you to freeze to death, it's winter in Canada, whether he believes in God or not I have no idea, I can't remember having seen him before.  I think that's evidence of the goodness that God is described as having, an effect of God, as much as Black Holes are said to be impossible to see, but their effects are seen.   

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I hope you aren't lumping all us neutral people in with the negatives. This tends to happen when one is overly positive.

Good to hear from you Phi.  My statement was, "I wonder how much of many people's negative reaction ..."  Negative people are not neutral. 

I wish I was overly positive .. I wouldn't even need to walk on water, I could fly (without an aircraft, jumping off a cliff with or without wingsuit.) 

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think you are wrong. You want him to be an atheist but he wasn't. What he said is a historical fact:

 

Thanks. I think either side of the divide wants to own him on the matter but he was having none of it. He was content with how he thought and could live with uncertainty.

And thanks again, tremendous thanks actually.  I'm not on my home computer, and I've emailed it to myself.

This one especially is priceless:  "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[13] In an interview published by the German poet George Sylvester Viereck, Einstein stated, "I am not an Atheist."[10] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[25]"

I wonder how much of many people's negative reaction against the idea of God is not based on the idea of God, but on the reality of the often corrupt operation of many institutions using the name and/or symbols of God?  I believe that is the overwhelming cause for the reaction against the idea of God, especially the vehement reactions. 

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

The quote you you provided was "Not only does God play dice but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."  Hawking. Not what you provided here, which irrelevant to my comment. Hawking was responding to Einstein’s quote. You can’t assume he was commenting on anything more than that.

You do not have to believe in God to write or say the word. You can even capitalize it. See, I just proved that it’s possible.

 

 

I see.  I was providing additional support that Hawking at one time held a belief in God.   I have seen in many current examples where some Jews will not use the word God .. but spell it G_d.   I have to take a break, an unwashed person sat down beside me at this public library, and is giving me the beginning of a sinus problem.

33 minutes ago, beecee said:

I did not say that you disagree with evolution per se...I was simply using it as an example of your general derision of science in the guise of supposed questions, evolution being one of them. The relevant part of what I said stands...."It's not resistance for the sake of resistance...it's obviously resistance due to the fact that the incumbent has served and is serving us as well as we can hope, and of course, it [V G4,] is still being actively researched and evaluated by  our best brains". And I supported that statement that it is not resistance for resistance sake or incalcitrance with the following examples thus...."We are debating it now....I mentioned it on this forum before coffeesippin....aLIGO are well aware of it and researching at this very moment...other experiments are afoot that could invalidate GR or further enhance it...by the same token, it could enhance the V G4 model also. the SKA and LISA Pathfinder are two, along with the Horizon probe". 

 

 

"I did not say that you disagree with evolution per se...I was simply using it as an example of your general derision of science ..." 

You DEFINITELY said I did not agree with evolution:  "the attempted derision of the theory of evolution via obtuse banter."   

 If you see my doubts on BB as a general derision of science despite my what should easily be seen by you as my obviously long term exploration of science, with up to date examples, then your prejudice against my admission that the bible in the KJV to be true and God's Word is far too deeply entrenched and bulwarked to be much affected my anything I have to say.  Perhaps you choose to ignore the most recent scientific evidences I present with links, like the amount of water IN the earth being at least as much as all the oceans ON the earth.