Alan McDougall

Without peeking at other responses:

 

Johnny

Meat and poultry

Everest

None. A hole is empty.

incorrectly

Lives in southern hemisphere

You use a camera to take pictures

2nd place

Neither. Yolks are yellow

One

Spot on I hope the other guys like you did not take peek

1 hour. The speed of the boat relative to the hat does not depend on the current.

Correct good thinking!

So I'm wondering do we have more reason to believe that the big bang is happening in the sense that were cooling down from the singularity or that were projected from a singularity with energy still being emitted?

Yes I think the Big Bang is still happening, the mistake most people make is to equate the Big Bang to some enormous explosion, but this is not what really happened, the universe emerged out of the primordial singularity and this emergence can still be observed, as the continuing expansion of the universe.

Is there only one universe?

No one knows but the Super- string theoretical physics postulate around the real possibly of there being multiple universe,in a sort of mega universe, some even suggest that there might be an infinite number of them.

Like many on this forum my hackles rise when science is called a religion, similarly when posters compare my lack of faith in any god as a religion; so this title was deliberately provocative.

 

Really it is just an excuse for a thought-provoking story from the BBC

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25715736

 

 

 

It is possibly the first time in the UK that a lack of religion has been grounds for protection under a law a/o convention which gives refugee status to those in fear of persecution on religious grounds

 

 

 

 

Whats your point?

i am really curios and am trying to remove all the limiters on human body like limited stamina and muscle strength .

but for most it is just some child dream , to be frank i take it very seriously.

i want u r opinions that if u were given the task to overcome certain limiters then what would u do and how.

 

the concept of cross species genetics is a high level science but there are some very interesting results in htis stream . this could be the ans to my question but not enough

 

Your posts are really odd and make little or no sense, why do you want to become something more than nature, or god if you like has blessed you with , you are unique and there in no other person exactly like you on earth , why is that not sufficient for you?

 

I find that if I visualise a face with enough concentration, there comes a point where, independent of my concious movement, my body starts to ASSUME the mannerisms of the person who's face Im thinking about? What is going on?

And not only that.

Everything I do, while simultaneous focusing on the mental image of that face, will be done exactly the way that person would do it, without me trying to consciously imitate him! how does this happen? its like I can actually transform into other people merely by thinking about them!

For example, say my friend stella has a unique way of laughing and talking. Now when I close my eyes, visualise her face strongly...and just 'laugh', my laugh comes ouit EXACTLY AS SHE WOULD LAUGH! im not CONCIOUSLy trying to laugh like her, it just happens! what is going on in my brain to make this possible??

 

I find that claim hard to believe, it smacks of the supernatural, to morph into someone else , you need more than the image of their face and outer mannerisms , you would need to get inside their brains and copy all of their thoughts and memories into your own , impossible I say!

I'd say, based on the evidence, that most astrophysicists support the idea of a flat observable universe. Again whether the entire universe beyond what we can see is flat is an open question.

 

For example, in his book, A Universe from Nothing, Lawrence Krauss proposes that the entire universe may be positive curvature -- a closed universe. He says a closed universe has a total energy of zero, hence "a universe from nothing". Inflation expanded this closed universe exponentially, so what we observe in our tiny part of the universe today is nearly zero curvature or flat.

 

Krauss says he based this idea on quantum gravity theory, which, as far as I know, has no supporting evidence. So I think his idea of a universe from nothing remains speculation.

I know this statement might be silly, but unimaginably colossal curved closed universe, would look flat unless one had some way to actually measure or observe its enormity from a distance.

 

Not all cases of depression include manic phases and there is a clear distinction between depression and bipolar depression:

 

http://www.ulifeline.org/articles/399-bipolar-depression-vs-unipolar-depression

 

Mine is unipolar so I speak from a slightly different point of veiw and my comment may well just be my subjective experience.

 

Personally I do very well to hide my depression (often for months at a time) but I have had a lot of practice.

 

As for my understanding of the condition, it is something I have lived and dealt with for the past 20+ years so I know a little something about it...

I have also lived and suffered with manic depression for over 35 years, experiencing both the depths of the lows and the euphoria of the high manic state. I now no longer go into very high mania, because it is controlled be medication. However, the mania now manifest itself in a different way, I get angry and irritable when there is absolutely no reason to feel that way.

I can relate to your unipolar clinical depression, because the down phase of the bipolar disorder is the same, many manic depressives commit suicide during the low phase of that disorder, not during the up state where they feel extremely good and well, which of course is an illusion, because even though you cant convince them that they are seriously ill while they are enjoying mania .

Hope you keep well, deep depression and mental pain, can sometimes be much worse than physical pain and distress.

The thing about being depressed is that you hide it. It's easy to admit to depression in this kind of anonymous environment, not so much in real life.

 

It's easy to think of it as admitting defeat or a sign of weakness.

That is true, when I started to suffer from a mental disorder many years ago, there was a lot of stigma attached to it, and although my work as a IT system analyst was of the highest quality, they would overlook me when time for promotions came about. This led to extreme frustration on my part and as soon as I was financially secure, as I could hope to be, I left on early retirement at the very young age of 47. I still had a huge amount of insight and talent to offer to society, but their prejudice would not allow them to recognize that as a fact. I was surrounded by well meaning patronizing colleagues and bosses, back then. Hopefully the present generation has developed a new understanding of manic depression, many of the greatest people of the past and present have contributed hugely towards the betterment of society.

We don't put people with diabetes for example out to pasture, mental illness like the bipolar disorder is a physical ailment, just as diabetes and not a weakness of the psyche

I think the proportion of fundamentalist Christians would vary depending on where you are in the world. In Western Europe for example, I suspect most Christians are comfortable with evolution and other such teachings of science (or these are my vague recollections of the statistics). The southern states of the US would likely be a different story. In any event, the black and white answer to your question is that of course one may be a theist and not a creationist; this is indeed true for a great many people.

You are right you simply can't box Christians into one generalized belief system, most Christians, at least the ones that can think further than the tip of their noses accept evolution, with a few reservations, example evolution happens while God looks on because the world is his sort of ant farm, meaning he has concern for it development ans safety, Their any many scientist who believe in God, but believe in Physics etc also. To many God is simply a great mathematician , I like that idea myself been a theist.

Does anyone know why biblical literalism is pretty much a US-only phenomenon? it originated in the US and in my country the only organisations peddling it are offshoots of American groups. The Catholics don't have it, nor Eastern Orthodox, not even Luterans... And the earliest interpretation fo the Old Testament, written before Jesus was born did NOT adhere to a literal interpretation. Among Catholic Church Fathers only one had an interpretation that was somewhat literal.

Bible literalism is most definitely not just confined to the USA it is rampant in Africa for example, my best friends who are very intelligent quickly get stupid, when I try to convince them the universe could not possible have been created in just 6 literal days or get them away from the ridiculous belief that the earth is only 6 thousand years old, it is like trying to have a logical debate with a lamp post.

This must depend on who you define a creationist. Don't most religions have some kind of creation myth? It people believe one of these myths then aren't they a creationist? Or does creationist really just mean anti-evolutionist?

 

 

 

 

People say that the big bang was how God created the Universe and that evolution is how God created us. So, one can to a point believe in God and science, but I wonder if that is strictly true. I mean, we know how the Earth orbits the Sun, in accordance to our theories of gravity, but couldn't God if he wished change our orbit thus breaking the laws of physics?

God could not brake his own rules, because if he were to do that it would lead to a cosmic disaster. Mathematical rules are immutable.

Have you had any "big insights"?

I am not sure what you mean?

The thing about being depressed is that you hide it. It's easy to admit to depression in this kind of anonymous environment, not so much in real life.

 

It's easy to think of it as admitting defeat or a sign of weakness.

You cant hide serious clinical depression especially the manic phase of bipolar disorder, in any environment your comments shows you have little understanding of the disease.

I've been there, Alan. It doesn't sound like you're depressed though.

I am not it varies, up and down!

Alan, the point is that you are not responding properly to criticisms or counterpoints by other members in this thread, either by simply ignoring them, going off on some unrelated or factually incorrect tangent or explicitly refusing to as you did earlier with John Cuthbert. This is a discussion forum and that's not how a discussion forum works. If you wish to have an actual conversation here, then you should be willing to do members the courtesy of responding to them when they have taken the time and effort to respond to you. You have failed thus far to provide evidence for any of your claims and yet you sit here and continue to preach them anyway. So, what exactly did you start this thread for? It seems like it was just to have people agree with you, forget what anyone else has to say on the matter, and that being the case, then I'm afraid that staff will probably be closing this. Note also that since I have participated in this thread, none of this is my opinion as a staff member.

I accept that and I can be hard headed and stubborn at time, please accept my apologies, but I retain the right not to debate with John Cuthbert as I perceive him as hostile toward me and has ignored my efforts t be friendly with him. I don't like using the ignore opinion on anyone be the way!

Numbers Chapter 31?

I have great difficulty in rationalizing this chapter with a concept of a good loving God as depicted by the lord Jesus Christ. !

The bible states that God is the same, yesterday, tomorrow and forever. This does not seem to be the case if one analyses and compares the awful chapter 31 of the book on Numbers, in relation to the loving, forgiving God,

1) Verse: 2 the Lord God said to Moses take vengeance on the Midianites.

In direct contrast, Jesus said, forgive those who hate you and despitefully use you. It is easy to love those that love you, but I say love those that hate you.

Vengeance is mine said the lord I will recompense. However, here God appears to go against his own word and commands Moses to take vengeance.

2) Verses: 3- 6 Make war and kill said the lord. This is a direct contradiction to Gods own commandment. Thou shalt not kill.

Jesus said if a man strikes you on the one cheek turn and offer him the other and not to violence.

3) Verses: 6-13 here the armies of Israel go out and destroy, spoil, burn and steal and plunder on Gods command. In addition, they slaughter all the adult males however; this is not sufficient bloodletting slaughter to please Moses or God as we read from verse 14.

In contrast, Jesus said he that lives by the sword would die by the sword. The soldiers apparently somewhat kinder and merciful than Moses spared the woman and children much to Mosses disappointment and anger


4) Verse: 14 Moses was wroth (angry) with the officers. Why? Because they had not slaughtered THE WHOLE LOT, WOMAN, CHILDREN, like they had done to the adult males. So what is sweet kind merciful Moses proposal? Verse: 15, He says now murder all the "little boys". In ABSOLUTE contrast Jesus said "blessed are the little children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of heaven".

For goodness sake is this the same merciful loving God depicted by Jesus. No this horrific story does not end yet.

Moses goes on saying." Kill all the woman" except those that have "not had sex with a man".

How on earth in those remote primitive days were the soldiers to know which woman were a virgin and which were not. There was definitely no gynecologist way back in 3000 B.C. WERE THERE?. So to me they must on Moses command raped all the woman first and then murdered those who were not virgins. Why was it necessary to rape them all? Because a woman's age does not necessarily indicate whether a woman is a virgin or not.

5) Now if any learned rational bible scholar can tell me that this is the same father God that is the same yesterday tomorrow and forever, I am all eyes and ears waiting for a logical explanation. You know if one takes out the title God and Moses and replaces them with Hitler and Rudolf Hess, no one would question that it was the work of the evil Hitler regime. Would they?

Am I blaspheming or sacrilegious?? can.

Alan McDougall 13/7/2007

You have stated that withholding information is deception and that deception is always a lie. If someone lies they are a liar. I stated I withhold information and so you are too stating that I am a liar.

Oh! rubbish, you are oversensitive, take a tranquillizer to calm down!

!

Moderator Note

It looks as though discussion has ground to a halt. Is there a way to get relevant questions answered, or is it time to close the thread?

It seems that someone still wants to keep it going, but you are a moderator and I cant decide.

Yes, it's cheaper because of the appeals. They automatically get an appeal. That's understandable. But then these appeals go on and on even when the one on trial doesn't want an appeal. Here's one example: http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/30975952-75/death-brumwell-court-eugene-murder.html.csp

Groups apposed to the death penalty fight to keep these appeals going for the most despicable of our species. It's these groups that complain that the death penalty is too expensive but they are the ones making it more expensive. They fight even for people they know are guilty but they say they value human life. I say the lives they fight for are not worth the life of a cockroach.

 

They make sure those on death row don't have access to anything they could kill themselves with. WTF??

Many of these killers don't even want to live any more. I say let them all die. Every cell on death row should have a hangman's noose and a stool. Want to talk about the cost of an execution, how much does a piece of rope cost? Hey, they're even reusable.

What upsets me is the fact that these scum gets meals in prison. They are not worth it. That food could go to someone homeless. I am talking about the worst of the worst.

 

I am talking about people like Charles Ng who was convicted of 11 murders, believed to have commited 25 murders. He even filmed them. He tortured his victims, even the infants.

 

The above quote is from http://listverse.com/2010/08/01/10-crimes-of-men-on-death-row/

 

Do your own Googleing and you'll find lots of killers that have incontrovertible proof against them.

I am talking about the worst of the worst. These guys have a light bulb in their cell that is worth far more than their life. That light bulb could do some good elsewhere. A light bulb could never cause such pain. These killers cause such fear in communities that I say just get rid of them.

Give them a noose and let them make the decision.

 

The morbid fact is that a lot of the worst killers film themselves torturing their victims. They try to inflict unimaginable pain on their victims before they die and they then watch these videos for their own enjoyment.

The worst of the worst.

 

Here's what Joseph Edward Duncan did to a 8 and 9 year old (the other family members got a quick death):

 

We are really on the same page as far as this debate goes!

Back to the original link. Latest observations indicate "the universe appears to be quite flat." They are talking about the observable universe being flat. We can only see that part of the overall universe where light from stellar objects has had time to reach us.

 

I think our best understanding is that there may be an overall non-flat curvature to the universe, e.g positive or negative. Inflation has enlarged the universe exponentially, so the part we can see appears to be very close to flat. An analogy is a balloon blown up to stupendous size. We ants on its surface see only a tiny portion -- which appears flat to us.

 

So you cannot just assume the entire universe is flat. We just don't know.

I think most astrophysicists support the idea of a flattish universe, but don't take that as gospel just I must check it out because the source of my statement is from my fallible memory.

Fair enough, I will stop offering thanks.

Could you answer the questions please?

Thanks for answering the first question.

So, you say that you don't know the difference between the heat of the moment and capital punishment.

OK, that explains a lot.

Please answer the other questions.

Thanks

I refuse thanks!

You stated that withholding information is being deceptive and being deception is always a lie. Yet what you posted says simply being deceptive does not make it a lie. You are the one who claimed I was being a liar by choosing not to share something. You are the one who stated it was deceptive. Even if we agreed it was deceptive according to the link all deceptions are not lies but lying is deceptive. So if you truly believe this anyone who has information they do not share with everyone must be a liar. So do we not have a right to privacy?

Where did I claim you were a liar? exactly where and when did I point out to you specifically as a liar??? Lighten up man!

The forum rules require you to answer reasonable questions about your assertions.

 

 

There's a tacit assertion that you think the home invasion scenario is relevant to a discussion of the death penalty.

They are not remotely equivalent, and the law recognises that.

I'm asking if you also know what the difference is.

That's not an insult, it's a question.

 

 

"Finally the subject topic was to establish if capital punishment was a form of justice, in my scenario I would not wait for the state to do it, I will do it myself ," And, in my opinion, you thereby lower yourself to their standards.

If there's no other way to stop the crime then shoot all you like, and with my blessing, but it's still not the same as the cold blooded killing of a helpless man in jail so it's not the same topic.

 

"How can you state as if it were a fact that, I don't know what I am talking about"

Because you couldn't even spell it correctly.

I remind you that, when I asked for evidence, you didn't provide any.

To me, that also suggests that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Why do you assume that this is something to do with "Of course I am always wrong and you are always right, you have "proved that to everyone by now" have you not?."

Do you not realise that if you post stuff that's wrong (or unsupported) on a science website then people will point out that you are wrong.

Do you not think we should do so?

Would it still be a science website if people could post any old stuff and people were not permitted to point out errors?

Incidentally, that's quite a lot of questions.

Please answer them.

No!!

Many of historys greatest minds were horribly tormented people. I myself suffer from frequent bouts of severe depression and have also been labeled a high functioning sociopath (something I am only recently beginning to fully understand). I take solace in the fact that some of my heroes (or anti-heroes) were also affected with similar issues.

 

Not least of which Richard Feynman and Lord Byron.

 

“He knew himself a villain—but he deem’d

The rest no better than the thing he seem’d;

And scorn’d the best as hypocrites who hid

Those deeds the bolder spirit plainly did.

He knew himself detested, but he knew

The hearts that loath’d him, crouch’d and dreaded too.

Lone, wild, and strange, he stood alike exempt

From all affection and from all contempt”

George Gordon Byron

One of history’s favorite sociopaths

Here are a few others

http://www.famousbipolarpeople.com/

Abraham Lincoln (leader)

· Adam Ant (musician)

· Agatha Christie (writer)

· Axl Rose (musician)

· Buzz Aldrin (other)

· Drew Carey (actor)

· Carrie Fisher (actor)

· Edgar Poe (writer)

· Gordon Sumner (Sting) (musician)

· Hans Christian Andersen (writer)

· Heinz Prechter (entrepreneurs)

· Isaac Newton (other)

· Jane Pauley (other)

· Jean-Claude Van Damme (actor)

· Jim Carey (actor)

· Jimi Hendrix (musician)

· John Dally (sporting stars)

· Jonathan Hay (sporting stars)

· Kay Redfield Jamison (other, writer)

· Kurt Cobain (musician)

· Larry Flynt (entrepreneurs)

· Liz Taylor (actor)

· Ludwig Boltzmann (other)

· Ludwig Van Beethoven (musician)

· Marilyn Monroe (actor)

· Mark Twain (writer)

· Maurice Benard (actor)

· Mel Gibson (actor)

· Micheal Slater (sporting stars)

· Napoleon Bonaparte (leader)

· Ozzy Osbourne (musician)

· Patricia Cornwell (writer)

· Patrick Joseph Kennedy (leader)

· Patty Duke (actor)

· Plato (other)

· Ralph Waldo Emerson (writer)

· Rene Rivkin (entrepreneurs)

· Robert Downey (actor)

· Robin Williams (actor)

· Sinead O'Connor (musician)

· Sophie Anderton (other)

· Stephen Fry (actor)

· Ted Turner (entrepreneurs)

· Tim Burton (writer, other)

· Tom Waits (musician, actor)

· Thomas Stearns Elliot (writer)

· Vincent Van Gogh (other)

· Virginia Woolf (writer)

· Winston Chruchill (leader)

· Wolfgang Armadeus Mozart (musician)

 

To play devil's advocate, let's assume the death penalty saves more innocent lives then those that are wrongfully accused and sentenced to death, would you chose death penalty or not?

It is still wrong to put to death an innocent person, so I can't answer your question.

 

Makes no difference to me whatsoever - I do not believe in the right of the state to kill in times of peace. I would still work against the death penalty even if I could clearly and honestly see benefits (reduction in crime, closure for victims, removal of fear of crime etc.); as none of these have ever been shown then there is all the more reason to campaign against the death penalty - ie from both pragmatic and ethical reasons.

 

As devil's advocate questions are making an appearance - how many people here would classify themselves as a christian and yet still agree with the death penalty in some certain specific circumstances?

There are so many different Christian cults , sects denomination with different interpretation of the Bible that it is impossible to give a generalized answer. However, fundamentalist Christians nearly all support the death penalty.

I have no set believes on religion I would say I fit somewhere between a deist and an theist, and I am not sure which of these I prefer .I don't like the idea of a god that interferes, in our affairs.

I am not sure where to post this topic, it both speculation and a serious possibility in the distant future,

Dear moderator if I have put in the wrong place could you move it to where it should be, thank you?

Could the Internet become a conscious mind?

Source unknown , but I will try to locate where I got it from!


Experts compare the Internet to a planet growing a global brain? As users, we represent the neurons. Texting, emails, and IM act as nerve endings, and electromagnetic waves through the sky become neural pathways.

Like germinating seeds, this global brain continues to evolve and as some forward-thinkers believe, will not stop until it develops feelings and achieves consciousness.

Feelings represent a lower level of awareness of what goes on in a system's environment. In that sense, the global brain will be conscious of important events affecting its goals. A higher level of consciousness - self-awareness - would require that the global brain could reflect on its own functioning.

The Internet, in the wider sense of the world community is slowly becoming aware of itself. Although today's algorithms make the web more intelligent, it cannot monitor itself. However, in principle, there are no obstacles towards implementing such a capacity in the future.

Search engines can adapt web pages to user needs. These hyperlinks bear a remarkable resemblance to the human brain. Synapses that connect neurons become stronger with repeated use, and disappear when usage declines. Similarly, global brain's algorithms will reinforce popular links, while rarely used links will diminish and die.

Could tomorrow's global brain allow uploading the human mind? At present, information exchanged between humans and computers only occur with mouse, keyboard or voice. However, many futurists believe that one day technology will enable us to separate our minds from the physical brain and store its information in a computer.

This is not as crazy as one might think. IBM hopes to reverse engineer the human brain by 2030, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute is rounding up 300 of the world's top neuroscientists to capture human thought at moment of creation, which conceivably could enable thoughts, memories, and feelings to be transferred into a machine.

In the future, many believe we will treat the human mind like any other bit of information by copying and storing it in various media. Scientists are aware that our mind roams over trillions of neuron connections and today, we do not possess abilities to understand this incredibly complex system.

But by mid-2030s, when artificial intelligence is expected to surpass human intelligence levels, and quantum computing systems become reality, positive futurists believe that our global brain will become fully conscious and self-aware as it guides humanity into what promises to become a most "magical future."

Do you think? It might DELETE MAN!! (My comment Alan)

 

In general it's an area, and one can view gravitational field strength in terms of flux line concentration, i.e. number of flux lines per unit area, which has a fairly simple geometric explanation.

My point exactly!

First of all Spacetime is 4D, not 3D.

 

Secondly, distance is not only "the void between two objects"

 

Distance has a lot of "strange" properties.

 

For example take a lever and use the distance to transform the applied force.

 

Take a balance and use the distance to make the balance shift on one or the other side, changing only and only the distance.

 

Take a clock and use it to define distance.

 

Use distance to look in the past.

 

My thoughts about distance are oriented in various directions.

 

Also if you want to change the distance beween 2 objects at rest relative to each other: you need a force to do that. Isn't that mind blowing?

 

Also: you change the distance between 2 objects and the gravity between those 2 objects changes, isn't that fantastic?

 

And not only that, gravity doesn't change in relation to the distance, but respectively to the square of the distance. That is absolutely incomprehensible: what is a distance squared? When we don't even know what a distance clearly "is".

The distance between two object in a 3 dimensional void at a specific relative moment,I think is an adequate description of space, not Spacetime, which I agree has 4 dimensions.

Distance is also not a static thing , everything in the universe is moving relative to everything else, thus my statement that the distance between two objects in a void can only be correct at the exact moment of time relative to the two objects in question. Then we are left with the enigma of exactly what a moment in time is and if such a thing exists in really , it become more of a philosophical question than one of pure physics .

All those statements you say are mind blowing or fantastic are not they are just the the reality in which our universe operates.You also that the physics around gravity and the square of gravity are absolutely incomprehensible, not so many people find this comprehensible.

Distance does not give us a peek into the past, it is the finite speed of light that allows that illusion

Keep with your sense of wonder and awe about the universe and how it operates Albert Einstein.quoted once that without mystery things could become bland and uninteresting (not his exact quote), I will look it up)

Here it is his actual quote!

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”