DrP

I used to think (because we were told this in school) that the standard definition of a kilogram was the mass of 1 litre of water at stp.  I guess this definition could be ambiguous anyway what with isotopes in the water and the accuracy of measuring the litre exactly.

They have apparently got a way to calculate 1 kilogram and to define it with that calculation from Plank's constant. I did not see the derivation in this New Scientist article. I'll try to look it up sometime unless anyone knows what the relationship is between Plank and the kilo and can post it?

Here is their headline anyway:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2203686-the-kilogram-has-been-transformed-today-as-new-definition-takes-hold/?utm_medium=SOC&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0fnJFJ66VpfxvCjh07GfXj1rkRus37xmv3d9zKH4I_DJVCSfAF-L04Cwg#Echobox=1558353102

Just now, dimreepr said:

Just another word in the mix...

but they mean 2 different things.

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That seems like a horrible way to live, no lucky pants, no fingers crossed and no friends till they prove themselves worthy.

I think you might be mixing faith with hope.

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 8:17 PM, Strange said:

The volume of a black hole increases proportionally to the cube of the mass so the density goes down as the square of the mass. So the bigger a black hole, the lower its density. So, yes, for a supermassive black hole the (average) density can be less than water. 

(Note that density doesn't really mean anything because (a) we don't know how the matter is distributed inside the black hole and (b) the "volume" is not well defined: inside the black hole the radius is time!)

Although the parenthesis addresses this a little - how could you possible know the volume of a BH? Are you talking about the volume inside the EH again? Other wise it makes no sense to me - how do you measure/calculate/estimate the volume of the singularity inside a BH without knowing what it even is and being totally blind beyond the EH? Without knowing anything about the packing of matter in the singularity (which is what we were speculating about earlier) how can anything be speculated with regard to volume and density of it?

Just now, spydragon said:

@Strange can you give a reason?

It is speculation, not science fact, so he moved it to speculation?

35 minutes ago, spydragon said:

this cannot be called a theory (its not even a very educated guess).

I like the speculation based on case 2. If particles can coalesce into a single quantum state at absolute zero, seemingly defying exclusion laws/principles, then why can't something similar or yet to be discovered abnormally cause a similar overlap at the other extreme of temperature and pressure but on a greater scale?  I used to think the BH was like a giant neutron star... but I am starting to think the actual singularity could be possible with this super imposition of matter to a point the size of a sub atomic particle or some kind of super nucleus.

How will the quantum gravitation theory shed light on this? I still do not see how we can get any info our from behind the EH so whatever we come up with will be pure speculation without being able to do any actual measurements beyond the EH, no?

2 hours ago, Strange said:

It is the size of the event horizon (the radius is directly proportional to the mass).

OK - that mental picture is way more manageable for my brain. lol  a BH whose actual singularity was the size of the solar system would probably have an EH larger than the universe, lol.  (It's OK - I know it doesn't really work like that - they are all the same 'size' - a singularity, whatever that is the size it is and is 'mathematically' considered an infinitely small point in space.).

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't think anyone considers singularities to be physically realistic; they are just an indication that the math no longer makes sense.

Speculation:-

I think it could make sense if the conditions inside the centre of the BH, the singularity, were such that all the collapsed matter is so compressed that every wave form from every subatomic particle chucks any exclusion laws out of the window and super impose themselves on each other into a single wavefunction for the whole mass. A bit like one giant collapsed super nucleus. A super giant single quantum entity made from the entire mass. I can envision 2 perspective states here - 

1 - where the mass of the collapsed nucleus would effect the actual physical diameter of the thing (I know mathematically it has no dimensions - it's a singularity) - we would still see it as a singularity but of course could only comment on its mass by the size of it's event horizon and it's gravitation effects on other bodies. The actual singularity would be about the size of a few atoms maybe and would change size slightly with mass although still look like a singularity from the maths.
2 - where not only the smallest quantization of subatomics are squished together, but, they actually superimpose on each other due to the extreme conditions into a single sub atomic quantum super particle/entity which would indeed appear as a singularity or as close as you can possibly imagine. The individual wave functions of each and every subatomic particle overlapping into a single entity the size of the smallest sub atomic particle but with immense mass. (like a Bose-Einstien condensate, although something different obviously that we haven't worked out yet  (because it's in a BH)).

I know none of this is testable. Reading it back it sounds awful - I know what I am trying to say but might not be getting it across very well (I've been ridiculed for the idea before....  but only I feel because none of this is testable).  A Bose-Einstien condensate is the condition at absolute zero. What about the absolute opposite? At 'infinite temperature pressure and smallest volume... maybe a different state occurs where exclusion laws no longer work on a much greater scale than at 0K.

Sorry - I'm waffling now.  Thoughts?  Mindless babble and speculation probably - none of it is testable or falsifiable right now. 

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Being fair you should read it instead of allowing a preacher to cherry pick it for you.

I never really done that imo (Cherry pick) -  I and many others I know used to pray before any bible study that we would be lead by the holy ghost to receive his message to us through his word. This meant letting certain things just hit you and sink in. Someone could talk for half an hour during a sermon but the important lesson is that one thing that leaps out at you and sticks. As it goes I guess this is a form of cherry picking, but if it were true (being led by the holy ghost) then it would be perfectly acceptable as the cherries are picked by god.

Basically - if the god of the bible were real then everything can be explained, all the contradiction all the errors, all of the perceived evil. It is all explained if god (and the devil) are real...  although the test for it's reality then becomes unfalsifiable.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I read Sermon on the mount does that count?

The Beatitudes.  I used to find the part where even thinking about a woman sexually is equivalent to adultery challenging. I used to beat myself up about it as my eyes have always wandered. Those are my eyes though and looking back I beat myself up for no reason. Burning with desire is one thing, a little flirtation or admiration is nothing imo and even perfectly natural. I fell like an idiot for entertaining it for so many years.  

"The meek shall inherit the earth?   -  well, let them have it!  I don't want any trouble with the meek!"

Just now, Phi for All said:

If it were supported by any evidence whatsoever, wouldn't there be head massage stations EVERYWHERE? 

Not necessarily surely? a - do people really care that much how fast their hair grows?   b - if a person does care that much about hair growth then they are probably balding anyway and I suspect (although purely speculating) that the massage will not work for them.

Speculation: IF this does work and hair grows faster when the circulation is better from massage (how much massage? continually all day every day or just an hour every day?) then does this apply only for people with a healthy head of hair? I would speculate that it wouldn't work for people who's follicular growth is already retarded.

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Love, tolerance, forgive generally only show in reference to loving god, .................... but forgive is at least occasionally applied to others but mostly in context to god forgiving people. 

Being fair the NT is all about love and forgiveness of each other. Doing unto others and stuff. It's the gospels.

8 hours ago, kuurt said:

Even in the bible it says: "ALL Things whatsoever you ask for in prayer, BELIEVING, you shall receive."  I have experienced it might self many times as have lots of other people

So - 'many times' is not 'ALL times' is it. The 'many times' fall under the banner of reasonably occurrence of the unexpected due to the standard probability curve. This means (according to probability) that there will be those that never get prayers answered and those that 'get lucky' and always seem to get their prayers answered. What about when they do not? How does that sit with "ALL Things whatsoever you ask "? 

You realise that due to standard deviations there will be those that seem to experience amazing miracles just due to the standard rub of the green yea?

Does it have to be connection with the nails or will any head massage do? I would suspect that if this is true it would be more to do with the stimulus from the massage rather than anything to do with the make up of the nails.

39 minutes ago, Strange said:

Supermassive black holes are quite hard to explain! It isn't known if the black hole came before the galaxy, or was created from material in the galaxy, or they both developed at the same time.

There is a limit to how fast black holes can "feed" (because the heat generated by infalling matter blows away some of the material). Current models do not allow black holes to get to that sort of size by absorbing material. It is also hard to see how that much matter could get that closes well.

One plausible hypothesis is "direct collapse" where a large cloud of gas collapsed directly to form the black hole, instead of forming stars as it collapsed. But I don't know how well confirmed this is yet. In this model, I think the black hole becomes a seed for the later formation of the galaxy.

I was wondering where a black hole the size of our solar system would have picked up so much matter. (do they mean the physical part is the size of the solar system or that is where the event horizon extends to? I took it to mean the actual physical mass). The speculation that they might be involved in the formation of a galaxy would explain away the need for it to feed on so much matter - maybe they already kept their mass from the initial expansion of all matter from the beginning.  

How did the initial 'hot dense state' of the universe before expansion compare to the make up of black holes? Could it have been similar to one single giant black hole that was the entire universe before it was broken up during expansion? One super singularity.   (sorry for the wild speculation - I am not an astrophysicist).

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

You mean 14 Billion years.

 

Yes I do.

OK - Typing the LHS of the equation into google gives links only to the formaldehyde as a result from what I can see. I don't have time to read through the results, but if you type 'CH3OH + 2CuO ' into google there should be some reading for you... at first glance it's all giving the aldehyde as the product.

no problem... although I would check the reasoning behind it, I could be wrong.

Also, sorry, it's formaldehyde not a ketone (which is very similar with the c=o) obviously.  

I'm guessing at the second one. I can't see the alcohol reducing the CuO back to the metal. The Cu1 going to Cu2 though looks feasible with the production of the ketone.

I bet hypervalent_iodide will be able to explain why.

MGC 4889. Wow!.  You'd only fit 1 in our entire solar system.    Makes you wonder what it fed on for 14 million years to get so big. Did it suck up any advanced civs or has it just spent it's time munching on developing star systems/solar systems. Did it start very big and stabilize or has it grown slowly or in spurts. I guess you could write a book in speculation as to how it came to be and what it ate. Is it possible to estimate or calculate the age of such a thing?

#feeingsmallandhumbled

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you read them without that requirement, they can make sense if you can ignore the plot holes and accept the nonsense is the noise of separation.

I studied it for years. I accept there is wisdom in it for contentment and peace and ways to love others and forgive. A lot of good things. But having to ditch most of it does not make it good evidence for the existence of god, which, is what this thread is about. I stopped believing there was a god (the Christian one or any of the world religion ones) a while back and the lack of consistency in the books was a contributing factor (one of many).

Other things that influenced my 'conversion' from believer to atheist:

Compelling evidence for evolution over creation.

Statistical analysis of pray answers (if something is possible, however likely, it will happen eventually)... co-incidences DO happen.

The realisation I was lying to myself as well as others.

The bombing of abortion clinics by 'Christians'.

Prayers neglected that made no sense. 'ask and you shall receive' / 'why would a father give a son a rock when he asks for bread' / 'taste and see that the lord is good'.

The discovery of mental states that cause the 'feeling' of presences that are mental tricks not supernatural encounters.

Some of the evil deeds accredited to god in the OT. You don't question it as a Christian because - 'who knows the mind of the lord' and 'do not test the lord' and 'who are you to question the ways of god' are common cop outs quoted from the bible whenever these issues crop up. 

There are many others and each point could be debated in depth or have an essay written about it on it's own. The evidence against the existence of deities described in the books from any of the worlds religions is overwhelming and pretty much incontestable. 

Just now, Phi for All said:

His base still thinks he's a good businessman because of his assets

Yea - even FOX news complimented him on his 'genius' accounting - choosing to make a loss year after year so as to avoid having to pay any tax. I am not sure I fully follow the genius of it myself... FOX said it so it must be true - I'll just take their word for it as I am no expert on tax dodging or filing losses of hundreds of millions.   

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Like the world didn't know 

Enough obviously didn't as they voted him into power.  

Just now, swansont said:

No, he did not. They were obtained, not released.

OK - Thanks - that actually makes a lot more sense than him choosing to show the world his incompetence.

1 hour ago, MandanMaru39 said:

The two books probably wanted the people to behave properly

I get the desire for people to live 'better' lives. But the books, which are supposed to be the infallible words of god, are full of plot holes and in some cases - total nonsense.

1 hour ago, MandanMaru39 said:

You have probably quoted from Bible

Sorry yes. Different fictional book.

1 hour ago, MandanMaru39 said:

I was telling about the working of God from the Muslim book Quran .

ah - the one where Mohamed flies to heaven on a horse with wings and makes the moon bleed.   Need I say more? It contains as much jibberish as the bible.

So he finally revealed his tax records. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?fbclid=IwAR2CiXhc1rA2Lpo5lwLLcBB1_o--jWoXH5MgbKx3sT9SnDzy14oy8O5ZWIs

Do those that voted for him still have his confidence seeing as his campaign was all about what a great business man he was? 

Maybe his father left him a note like the one from 'Brewster's Millions'.