Greg H.

Well then, can you use that to falsify the concept of god?

Not really, because the standard scientific investigative method assumes you can test the predictions of your assertion - God, according to the standard Christian definitions, lies in the realm of the untestable, and you cannot falsify what you cannot test.

Based on my understanding (which, admittedly, could be very flawed):We would see in a circle 13 billion light years across - so would they. Both circles are centered on the observer. So they would see things we cannot, and we would see things they cannot.

The universe itself is infinite. The observable universe is finite, and what is observed varies based on the location of the observer.

Edit to attach a file showing a conceptual drawing.

In this drawing the blu dots are the (vastly oversized) planets, while the circles indicate their observable areas. The football shaped area in the middle is the only area where both would be able to see the same things.

Now, keep in mind this is a 2d drawing, and the effect would actually be spheres, not circles.

That's not even close to true. In fact, that's the majority of what science does; it falsifies hypotheses via Modus Tollens:

 

p->q

~q

~p

 

Look at that, proving a negative in only three lines of logic!

 

Are you really proving a negative, or are you simply concluding that the assertion p is false?

Please tell us what LFTR has ever run.

The LFTR is a type of thorium molten salt reactor (TMSR). Molten-salt-fueled reactors (MSRs) such as LFTR, where the nuclear fuel itself is in the form of liquid molten salt mixture, should not be confused with the solid-fueled Fluoride salt-cooled high temperature reactors (FHRs).^[1]

Alvin M. Weinberg pioneered the use of the MSR at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. At ORNL, two prototype molten salt reactors were successfully designed, constructed and operated. These were the Aircraft Reactor Experiment in 1954 andMolten-Salt Reactor Experiment from 1965 to 1969. Both test reactors used liquid fluoride fuel salts. The MSRE notably demonstrated fueling with U-233 and U-235 during separate test runs.^[11](pix) Unfortunately for MSR research, Weinberg was fired and the MSR program closed down in the early 1970s,^[12] after which research stagnated in the United States.^[13][14] Even today, the ARE and the MSRE remain the only molten salt reactors ever operated.

from http://en.wikipedia....thorium_reactor

Beats fast extinction!

The problem being that those aren't our only two options.

Teach the next generation of brain scientists.

Teach them what? They don't need astronomy, inorganic chemistry, or physics to research brains. And once your great change is complete and there are no more physicists, chemists, or anthropologists left, who takes up where your disenfranchised generation left off? We just going to leave behind a few Post-Its to help them carry on?

Your approach will not save the human race - it will doom it to slow extinction.

Very sensible indeed. Really, it is. For the early 20th century.

 

We no longer have time for slow and sure. Knowledge isn't just developing, it's accelerating.

Funnily enough, I am pretty sure that in the early 20th century we were still bashing each other in the head with rocks (figuratively speaking) on a grand scale. And our ethics development doesn't need to keep pace with the development of knowledge, it needs to keep pace with the development of our society, and the changes in how they interact. Thus far it seems to be doing that.

You have 10 seconds to withdraw that comment or I will launch a full scale nuclear strike upon your home base. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6....

LOL. Nice try, my friend, but I know you don't have nukes. My spies have confirmed that your WMDs are really nothing more than a crack pipe and a slingshot.

And not to derail the thread, but what is a Weapon of Mass Destructions (WMDs) Isn't one mass destruction bad enough? Or, more appropriately, shouldn't they be called Multiple Weapons of Mass Destruction (MWMD)? Sorry, on with the thread.

See guys, it's happening already, right here on this little forum. Soon we'll be calling each other names, and then the mod will nuke us all. What's the logic of making characterizations of each other's remarks? There is none. But we, including me, are human. Yep, me too, I've been banned a number of times. Given that evidence, do you want me to have a nuke?

 

Imagine that all of us had a digital nuke that could blow up this entire forum. Very few of us would consider using it. But sooner or later, somebody would. Some poster, maybe even a quite intelligent one, would lose their cool, and push the button.

Humans are competitive, selfish outside of our acknowledged social groups (and sometimes within them), and driven to discover and succeed. This is why we developed the field of ethics - to help us over these hurdles in our relationships with each other. You can't evolve those traits out of us, because it's a fundamental part of why we have reached the point we have. We can certainly evolve our ethics, but that's a societal change, not a physiological one.

I wouldn't, and didn't propose that. I would take their funding and give it to the brain guys.

Ok, that's less patently ridiculous, but it still leaves the problem of what all the physicists, geologists, archaeologists, computer scientists, astronomers, cosmologists, biologists (who aren't doing brain research), chemists, etc etc, are going to do with their time.

The point I am trying to make is that we are solving this problem, slowly, but surely, by improving our understanding of the human family, and resolving our differences in some way that doesn't involve bashing each other in the head. But there will always be fundamentalists who resist change that slow this process down. We need to let our society evolve naturally, not force it to change to match our expectations.

Redirect all research that isn't immediately pressing in to research of the human mind.

 

Not to be offensive, but this is patently ridiculous. Why would you have physicists, for example, researching the human mind? And you're not even discussing the physical brain, you're discussing the ephemeral consciousness - that's more the realm of psychologists and neurologists than physicists.

I'm not proposing that we not move forward. I'm proposing we move forward in a particular direction, identify the source of the problem and address it.

 

If we insist that we must remain unchanged, the source of the problem is our "more is better" philosophy of knowledge. If we insist that our philosophy of knowledge must remain unchanged, then we are the source of the problem. We could approach it from either direction.

 

My proposal is that we could have either, but not both. If we remain the same, and receive ever more power, sooner or later we'll make a fatal mistake with that power. Remember, it only takes one bad day. Thousands and thousands of days to come, and just one bad one will do the job.

So the question then becomes how do you identify "dangerous science"? And how do you prevent the inevitable "I don't like what evolution teaches so I am going to classify that as dangerous to stop funding and ban it" mentality that WILL erupt, because let's face it, humans are also very self-interested.

It's surely possible the cure would be worse than the disease. A serious concern for sure.

 

On the other hand, I would ask us to observe that we are full of confidence when it comes to exploring the very fundamental qualities of nature, or migrating our entire civilization off the planet etc. Why do we usually assume changing ourselves for the better is impossible?

I never said it was impossible. People change themselves for better and worse all the time. Changing the nature of the human species, however, is not quite the same as deciding to be more eco-friendly in your consumer choices.

I apologize for harping on this, but this is not the past. It's 2012, not 1912. Even in 1912 we demonstrated we were capable of erasing an entire generation of European young men.

 

The times they are a-changing.... [insert harmonica solo here]

How is that different from the Crusades exactly? As was pointed out to you before, the year really doesn't matter. Humans have been capable of massive destruction on a widespread scale since we figured out how to bash each other in the head with a club.

I saw him interviewed on TV, and he said that while the chance of a catastrophe in any one year is quite low, when you start adding up the years the odds rise to near certainty. I agree with him.

This is true of any probabilistic event. The chance of the Earth being struck by a GRB at any given time is very low, but if you add in enough time to the mix, it is almost guaranteed to occur. Should we therefore cower in fear of the future, or accept that there's not much we can do about pure, dumb luck, and move on with our lives?

And I do understand the differnce - in your example, we do have some measure of control over our governance of our species fate - but that means that we need to approach the situation from an ethical standpoint, and not with a knee-jerk reaction that will hamstring the human race's ability to move forward.

Hawking defines the job as surviving for the next two centuries, and then migrating off the planet. Presumably, once we're dispersed throughout the heavens we won't be able to exterminate ourselves totally. This is where I disagree.

Nothing is impossible, but it will certainly make the task orders of magnitude higher. On the other hand, it does avoid the "all your eggs in one basket" problem we have now.

We are the problem. So why don't we fix the problem? While Hawking claims to be optimistic, he seems to completely dismiss the idea that we have the ability to change ourselves. He seems content to treat symptoms, instead of the source of the problem.

 

What do you think of these choices?

 

1) We find a way to fix ourselves, or...

 

2) We find a way to limit our power, or...

 

3) We make peace with rolling the dice, and eventually losing.

Option 3 is really the only choice. Even if we choose one of your other options, we are still also picking option 3 because we are then assuming that whatever comes next will be survivable. If we choose option 1 we're making the assumption that the cure isn't worse than the disease. Option 2 assumes we won't need expanded power in the future to avoid some cataclysmic event (asteroid impact anyone?). Option 3 has worked out fairly well for us so far, I see no real need to change at this point.

<snip all the repeated crap>

 

 

People, life, the universe and / or God (by any name) must make sense to YOU.

 

...if thou art true to thine self, the stars in their

course will fight for thee; but if thou art upon those ways

that make for question marks here as to thy veracity, thy

sincerity, thy ability, as to thy consideration of each and

everyone in the proper sphere that touches each proposition

coming before self, then - as it were the moon and the sun

are set upon thy efforts, and the darkness of trouble and

discord arises from those seeds of uncertainty that bring

distressing experiences in the activities of all.

From Edgar Cayce reading 257-162

 

 

 

Your woo has no power here. Come back with a substantive response to the challenges indicated, or kindly admit that your theory is a load of horse droppings and abandon it.

I'll take one for the team and eat them.

On a more serious note, call it what it is: killing creatures that we consider no longer of any use.

The mass has not changed (other than by more solar wind becoming water and any meteorites).

So you're saying the surface gravity of the earth 180 million years ago was 4 times higher than it is today?

The continents jigsaw together into the entire planet without oceans, 55% of current radius!

I have two words you need to explain - continental shelves.

The Moon has not likely been ripped out of the Earth's core materials where the heavier elements would be. It therefore seems to lack tectonic activity.

What does this have to do with anything at all?

Then, what happened to the planet that is now asteroids.

And...wait, what? I thought we were discussing the earth.

I'm a nut.

While I realize I have taken this out of context, it's the only portion of your post that makes any sense at all.

you only prove I am right

Right about....what exactly? Completing your thoughts helps people understand you.

Second, it is relatively easy to insult and cite and silence. It is a slight more difficult to explain lift in your own few best words.

First, if I insulted you, it was unintentional, and I most certainly apologize.

Secondly, lift is the upward force applied on an object as it moves through the air. It is not, however, necessary for the surface to be curved in any fashion, as evidenced by the vast number of aircraft with symmetrical wings that manage to fly just fine.

I suspect (and maybe a physicist can confirm this for us) that the curved shape may make the lift more efficient, but it's not necessary at all. As Moontanman said, I can make a brick fly if I strap a rocket to it.

Third, people marked like you need to upgrade their dictionary. Levity has shared the same meaning as lift since long before your first edition. Look for an up~grade that clearly states even definitions evolve over infinite time.

I am well aware of how language changes over time. However, the closest definition I could even find for what you are espousing was an archaic definition that equates levity with the lightness of an object. A light object certainly requires less lift to fly, but being light does not cause flight. I stand by my correction of your terms.

Forth, I am the OP and author of this particular thread. I will reserve the right to employ the spellings and words and definitions and punctuations that best convey what I see. Please feel free to do the same.

Communication requires that you present your message in a way that gives it the best chance of being understood. Unless, of course, you're just engaging in sophistry, in which case, by all means, carry on gibbering word salad all over the place.

What makes no sense at least for me; is how the otherwise intelligent brains at the Massachusetts ∫ing Institute of Technology have not a clue what causes a wing to levitate.

Wings don't levitate. They are lifted by the motion of the medium they are moving through in a lateral direction across their surfaces. If wings levitated, planes wouldn't need engines to fly.

A perfectly smooth ball is rolling down an incline.

Does air flow faster over the topside or the bottom?

Neither. Except for the patch in contact with the ground, it would flow the same speed across the entire surface. This is why balls rolling down inclines do not spontaneously take flight.

Is this substantially different from having to have a license to practice medicine?

No idea. But they license barbers these days too.

Well, you can't say that they're an impartial observer - they get paid a fee when you register through their credentialing arm, the Commission of Dietetic Registration. That aside, in North Carolina, you have to be certified to be a nutritionist, which is not the case in all states.

According to the CDR's website, here's the list:

Alabama (1989)* - licensing of dietitian/nutritionist

Alaska (1999) - licensing of dietitian/nutritionist

Arkansas (1989) - licensing of dietitian

California (1995)* - registration* of dietitian

Connecticut (1994) - certification of dietitian

Delaware (2009) - licensing of dietitian/nutritionist

District of Columbia (1986) - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist

Florida (1988) - licensing of dietitian, nutritionist and nutrition counselors

Georgia (1994)* - licensing of dietitian

Hawaii (2000)* - certification of dietitian

Idaho (1994) - licensing of dietitian

Illinois (1991) - licensing of dietitian and nutrition counselors

Indiana (1994) - certification of dietitian

Iowa (1985) - licensing of dietitian

Kansas (1989)* - licensing of dietitian

Kentucky (1994)* - licensing of dietitian and certification of nutritionist

Louisiana (1987)* - licensing of dietitian/nutritionist

Maine (1994)* - licensing of dietitian and dietetic technician

Maryland (1994)* - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist

Massachusetts (1999) - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist

Minnesota (1994) - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist

Mississippi (1994)* - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist title protection

Missouri (1998)*-certification of dietitian

Montana (1987)* - licensing of nutritionist and dietitian title protection

Nebraska (1995)* - licensing of medical nutrition therapists

Nevada (1995)* - certification of dietitian

New Hampshire (2000) - licensing of dietitian

New Mexico (1997) - licensing of dietitian, nutritionist and nutrition associates

New York (1991) - certification of dietitian and nutritionist

North Carolina (1991) - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist

North Dakota (1989)* - licensing of dietitian and certification of nutritionist

Ohio (1986) - licensing of dietitian

Oklahoma (1984) - licensing of dietitian

Oregon (1989) - certification of dietitian

Pennsylvania (2002) - licensing of dietitian-nutritionist

Puerto Rico (1974)* - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist

Rhode Island (1991)* - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist

South Dakota (1996) - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist

Tennessee (1987) - licensing of dietitian/nutritionist

Texas (1993)* - licensing of dietitian

Utah (1993) - certification of dietitian

Vermont (1993) - certification of dietitian

Virginia (1995)* - certification of dietitian and nutritionist

Washington (1988) - certification of dietitian and nutritionist

West Virginia (2000) - licensing of dietitian

Wisconsin (1994) - certification of dietitian

Wyoming (2012) - licensing of dietitian

I just dont get it: Why then cant we simplify things by saying that a and b are simultaneous if they happen at exactly the same moment in time? I mean Im not saying that there is anything wrong when you calculate things by the methods of Special Relativity... Its just that the original definition looks circular to me and I wondered if the concepts on the different sides of the definition perhaps were different concepts... that would make the definition non circular but then there would be TWO concepts of simultanity and...

Actually, what you have is a very precise way of measuring simultaneous happenings in a scientific setting - that's the only difference between the two versions of the definition. For normal conversation your shortened definition is fine - scientists need precise definitions because they are dealing with very precise equipment and concepts.

Well I might have used the wrong word to describe it. Lets just call it a speculation, will that make it better for you?

It's certainly a better choice.

In Maxlow's second article he admitted his theory had two problems.

 

1. Where has the water come from since the Earth had 55% current radius 180MYA clearly indicated by GMW.

 

2. What can explain the evidenced exponential rate of expansion.

 

That's not the only problems it needs to solve. Where did all the new mass come from? Because either the Earth was on a heck of a diet back then, or someone needs to explain away the four fold higher surface gravity at the time.

In order for the gravity to remain relatively constant over the intervening 180 million years, the earth would need to have had 1/4 of the mass it does now. That's not an insignificant problem to surmount. Essentially, you're trying to prove that the earth went from roughly the same radius as Mars and a little more than twice the mass to the size it is now in 180 million years.

And that's AFTER blooping off 5% of it's total mass at the time as the moon (unless you're saying it, too, is gaining mass).

So we have the earth gaining (if my math is right) 55,300,000,000,000,000 kgs a year. That's roughly 1.8 million kgs a second worldwide. I think we'd have noticed by now.

It's just a theory.

No, evolution is "just" a theory. General Relativity is "just" a theory. What you have is the basis for a hypothesis, assuming you can come up with some sort of predictions that aren't better explained by some existing theory or model, and a testing methodology for your predictions. Once it's grown up a little, it can be a theory. Maybe.

Though, frankly, I'm inclined more to the "woo" camp myself on this one.

It's not circular, just mathematically precise. All it's really saying is that if you have two visible events (in our case we'll use flashing lights) set some distance apart (called ab) then the lights can be said to flash simultaneously if and only if the light from A and the light from B reach the exact mid point of the distance between them (midpoint of ab) at exactly the same moment in time.

Such efforts have had some success, it's true. Are you proposing that such success can be maintained in all cases forever?

Since maintaining anything forever is an impossibility, your question is ridiculous. Nothing is certain.

Using the logic of the group consensus....

 

I propose we research how to erase entire continents from the face of the earth, based upon the principle that.....

 

IN ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD WE LIMIT SCIENCE IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

That's a false dichotomy, my friend. There are middle grounds that could be taken, and indeed sometimes are, for instance, repression of an article if the information could prove harmful if given to a terrorist organization.

So in other words, you put faith in their opinions as being correct? I think you are confusing blind faith (the type many religious folks use) with regular ol' faith (the type I place in my doctor when I ask him if I'm dying or not).

I wouldn't call it faith. I have confidence that they know what their talking about - at least, until something proves them wrong. I base that confidence on their experience and expertise in their chosen field. Faith has become one of those imprecise muddy words that we English speakers like to use when we really mean something else. To me faith has connotations of trust (or belief) without evidence, or any real reason to support it. I don't have faith in my doctor, I have confidence he knows what he's talking about because he's been trained to be a doctor, and he's been my physician for ten years.

This is not a fair comparison, because the auto mechanic is not presenting himself in a position to give advice on neurosurgery, nor vice versa. A better comparison would be to take an auto mechanic, put him in a doctor's white coat, and send him around the around the ward. I bet you 90% of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference (especially if you gave him an hour or training before hand).

Perhaps it's not a fair comparison at that, but I have a hard time understanding why people refuse to learn enough about a subject to make an informed opinion, rather than having their opinions force fed to them. Is that a societal issue?

It is certainly not obvious, and I can't help feeling people accepting scientific results from a position of faith, and then criticising or ridiculing those who adopt other faith based world-views, are being a little hypocritical.

We don't accept science from a position of faith. We accept science based on the evidence it produces. No one can know everything - there simply isn't enough time to relearn everything the human race has uncovered in the last few thousand years. When I need facts about science, I read people who are acknowledged in that field - physicists, chemists, biologists. We I need information on a medical condition I consult a doctor. If I need information concerning faith, I consult a religious scholar. I don't consult a priest about science, especially cutting edge science, because it would be an unreasonable expectation on my part to assume the priest knows as much as the scientist.

There's nothing wrong with accepting the advice of experts. But you have to choose people who actually are experts.

To the scientifically illiterate they can both appear equally valid...creationists don't look like eight year old's that's the problem. How do you ascertain which one (scientist v creationist) knows what they are talking about?

 

The point is it's not easy differentiating from a position of ignorance.

Really? Do these same people also have trouble differentiating between a neurosurgeon and an auto mechanic? I don't know squat about either one, but I have no trouble figuring out which one I need to fix which problem.