ZVBXRPL

An Alien Scientist lands in your back garden. You invite him in for a cup of tea and a plate of biscuits. Whilst having a discussion about science, he claims that the scientific theories you believe to be true are wrong.

What would your reaction be?

a) Accept that he is right.

b) Argue with him and take the biscuits away.

c) Knock the cup of tea out of his hands and throw him out

d) Invite friend/s around to take part in the discussion

I believe that everything that can happen has happened and more than once, but not because we live in a temporal causality loop but because we exist in an infinite universe

Throughout the history of the Earth, the planet's climate has been fluctuating between two dominant climate states: Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth.

Currently, the Earth is in an Icehouse climate state.

Icehouse Earth + Global Warming = Greenhouse Earth.

Humans are irrelevant. If all humans dropped dead this natural cycle would continue for billions of years until the Earth ceased to exist.

If humans ever became a threat to Earth, the Earth would destroy them and the natural cycle would continue.

The motive of the politicians who talk about global warming has nothing to do with "saving the planet", they are only interested in themselves. Money, power, career, that is ALL they care about.

If you believe that Al Gore and others CARE about the planet you are living in a fantasy world.

I would say human beings are simultaneously the most intelligent and the most stupid of all lifeforms on Earth.

So. If you were in charge, what would you change about the new ScienceForums.Net?

Dogma is a central pillar of this forum. Dogma is the enemy of Science. So the change I would make is to knock down that central pillar so Dogma is no longer a part of the forum.

If Jesus was a real historical human being, then the backstory that seems most likely, in my opinion, is the one where he travelled to the East and was influenced by Buddhism.

The only 2 historical sources, outside the Bible, for Jesus being a real person, were both written around 100 years or so after Jesus.

War on Terror is just The Cold War Part II

Islam is seen to be a threat to capitalism, so something needed to be done

It's all propaganda and BS, always has been and always will be, until there is a revolution (hundreds of years away minimum)

To answer the question in the thread title

US foreign policy is the cause

How would you feel if a foreign nation bombed and invaded your country and killed thousands and thousands of your fellow citizens

Very angry you would be

 

As this is a science forum, perhaps you could present the data and calculations that support that conclusion.

 

 

Because we need energy and we don't have alternatives in place yet. There are however, strict targets in place for reducing the use of fossil fuels over time.

 

Also, although I don't agree with your more extreme characterizations of politicians, they are limited in what they can do: if they destroyed the economy by doing that, then they wouldn't get re-elected.

 

 

It is an incentive to encourage people to reduce their reliance on carbon fuels.

 

Most politicians think it is better to encourage people rather than force them using regulation.

 

 

There are laws in various places putting very strict limits on emissions that means that it will be increasingly difficult for anything but electric or other renewable-powered vehicles to be used.

 

 

Sadly, no, that is not the answer.

 

 

If more of them cared about the science or the future, beyond their term of office, then they might have done something about it long ago. As it is, most are unrealistically denying the science and refusing to do anything about it.

 

 

This argument seems to be based on a fallacy: because human activity was not responsible in the past, it can't be responsible now. There are a couple of reasons why this argument doesn't work: we know (in general) what the changes were in the past that caused those changes and know they are not the cause now; also the rate of change now is far greater than in any of those previous transitions.

 

Anyway, maybe you should look at the science instead of listening to "politicians and celebrities".

Throughout the history of the Earth, the planet's climate has been fluctuating between two dominant climate states, Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth.

These two climate states last for millions of years.

Greenhouse Earth = No ice caps, warm. Icehouse Earth = Ice caps, cold. Makes sense.

The climate state for the Earth at present is Icehouse Earth.

An Icehouse Earth is subdivided into glacial periods and interglacial periods. Glacial periods are colder, interglacial periods are warmer.

The period we are in at present is interglacial.

What evidence do YOU have that the Earth is no longer fluctuating naturally between Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth?

My argument is perfectly valid. Your argument is one of politicians and spin doctors

The government doesn't care one little bit about the planet, it doesn't even care about the people living on the planet, what it DOES care about is MONEY.

Do you really believe the same people who are responsible for slaughtering millions of people, care about the planet?

What is with people today? Some people discount hundreds of years of scientific research and data. They think the greatest minds in science have flaws in their reasoning. We have morons like this woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM

I get aggravated just watching this woman.

She says she doesn't want to hear scientific theories. She only wants to be shown fossils and let her make up her own opinion of what the fossils mean.

She constantly says "how do they know this?" "Did they have a video camera?" "This is all guessing"

 

I really think the problem is education. As an American I am ashamed to show this graph but the problem is worse in the U.S.

evolution.jpg

Here's where I got this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

 

Reminds me of this

PHOEBE: That's fine. Go ahead and scoff. You know, there're a lot of things that I don't believe in, but that doesn't mean they're not true.

JOEY: Such as?

PHOEBE: Like crop circles, or the Bermuda triangle, or evolution?

ROSS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, you don't, uh, you don't believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: Nah. Not really.

ROSS: You don't believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: I don't know, it's just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it's a, it's a nice story, I just think it's a little too easy.

ROSS: Too easy? Too...The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms, too easy?

PHOEBE: Yeah, I just don't buy it.

ROSS: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.

PHOEBE: Ok, don't get me started on gravity.

ROSS: You uh, you don't believe in gravity?

PHOEBE: Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.

ROSS: How can you not believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: Just don't. Look at this funky shirt!

ROSS: Pheebs, I have studied evolution my entire adult life. Ok, I can tell you, we have collected fossils from all over the world that actually show the evolution of different species, ok? You can literally see them evolving through time.

PHOEBE: Really? You can actually see it?

ROSS: You bet. In the U.S., China, Africa, all over.

PHOEBE: See, I didn't know that.

ROSS: Well, there you go.

PHOEBE: Huh. So now, the real question is, who put those fossils there, and why?

ROSS: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?

PHOEBE: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.

ROSS: Please tell me you're joking.

Wondered what people thought of this hypothesis.

I remember years ago I read something somewhere about ancestors of humans living in water and this helped with our evolution.

I think of it now and again, but until now didn't know what the theory was called or anything.

I did a search and managed to find the name of the hypothesis I was thinking of - Aquatic ape hyopthesis.

Seems interesting. If it were true it would mean that water was not only a major factor in evolution of life in general but for human evolution too.

Am I a global warming Skeptic? Depends on the exact question being asked.

Do I believe that politicians care about the planet? 100% NO. Anyone who believes that a politician CARES about anything other than themselves is very naive.

Do I believe that politicians care about money? 100% YES.

Do I believe that the planet is getting warmer? Don't know. Hope it is.

Do I believe that MAN is the main contributing factor for climate change. NO, that is a completely ridiculous suggestion. Not a surprise though given the history of mankind's arrogance.

Do I believe than MAN is contributing in any significant way to the change in climate? Don't know. Hope we are (as long as we are making it warmer, not colder!)

If man made global warming is such a serious planet endangering process like the politicians and celebrities claim it is, then why don't the governments BAN the burning of fossil fuels? Why is their solution a carbon tax? Why is there no law saying that ALL vehicles produced must be electric powered? Answer is - there is no serious planet endangering process occuring.

The global warming media frenzy is a pure money making scam. Why is that a surprise when the majority of the planet is capitalist and the driving force for everything is money. If you think politicians genuinely care about the planet you are VERY naive. They don't care about anything, only themselves.

Throughout the history of the Earth, the planet's climate has been fluctuating between two dominant climate states, Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth.

These two climate states last for millions of years.

Greenhouse Earth = No ice caps, warm. Icehouse Earth = Ice caps, cold. Makes sense.

The climate state for the Earth at present is Icehouse Earth.

An Icehouse Earth is subdivided into glacial periods and interglacial periods. Glacial periods are colder, interglacial periods are warmer.

The period we are in at present is interglacial.

I would be more worried if it was said there was man made global cooling.

Global warming may lead to the planet returning to a Greenhouse Earth climate state. Warm and no ice caps.

Throughout the history of the planet, the time spent in a Greenhouse Earth state heavily outweighs the time spent in an Icehouse Earth state. Icehouse Earth is not the normal state for the Earth. I think of it as Icehouse Earth = the Earth has a cold and is sick. Greenhouse Earth = the Earth is warm and healthy.

Q. What caused all the previous transitions from Greenhouse Earth to Icehouse Earth and Icehouse Earth to Greenhouse Earth? It wasn't human beings.

Q. What caused all the previous transitions from glacial to interglacial and interglacial to glacial within Icehouse Earth conditions? It wasn't human beings.

If the planet is warming and humans are helping, why is that bad? If we ARE helping the planet warm, this is a good thing. The planet getting warmer and returning to a Greenhouse state = Earth getting better from it's cold. I would be more worried if there was man made global cooling. I don't want to live in a snowball Earth.

George Carlin

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

I'll start with the premise that we as humans only make sense of the world using logic, id go further and say that i define our fundamental ability to deduct logic gives rise to higher intelligence and possibly even consciousness itself.

 

Given this premise, everything we consciously believe/percieve can be mapped logically. Therefor could the ability for us to conceive of "something from nothing" be impossible?

 

If the above statement is true then god simply isnt logical. But is logic all there is? considering "something must have come from nothing".

 

This isnt a very articulate explanation so i can expand or re-word it if it doesnt make sense.

 

Regards.

Most human beings are illogical. They live their lives with emotion being the primary motivating factor for everything they do, say and think.

When man first created "God", it was during a very primitive time in human history. They were wandering about the planet, hunting and breeding and had started to become more intelligent than the other animals around them.

So they start to ask questions about stuff. They come up with God of the Sky, God of the Earth, God of the animals, God of breeding, God of hunting, God of that little star thing up there that makes the Earth warm and light.

Fast forward to the present day, the vast majority of people on the planet still follow these primitive belief systems, despite the advances in science and technology. Depressing.

The only reason the majority of people on the planet are religious is because they are raised to be religious. We are still a primitive child-like species, playing with science and technology toys.

We are no different to how we were thousands of years ago. The only difference is that the toys are better.

If man made global warming is such a serious planet endangering process like the politicians and celebrities claim it is, then why don't the governments BAN the burning of fossil fuels? Why is their solution a carbon tax? Why is there no law saying that ALL vehicles produced must be electric powered? Answer is - there is no serious planet endangering process occuring.

The global warming media frenzy is a pure money making scam. Why is that a surprise when the majority of the planet is capitalist and the driving force for everything is money. If you think politicians genuinely care about the planet you are VERY naive. They don't care about anything, only themselves.

Throughout the history of the Earth, the planet's climate has been fluctuating between two dominant climate states, Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth.

These two climate states last for millions of years.

Greenhouse Earth = No ice caps, warm. Icehouse Earth = Ice caps, cold. Makes sense.

The climate state for the Earth at present is Icehouse Earth.

An Icehouse Earth is subdivided into glacial periods and interglacial periods. Glacial periods are colder, interglacial periods are warmer.

The period we are in at present is interglacial.

I would be more worried if it was said there was man made global cooling.

Global warming may lead to the planet returning to a Greenhouse Earth climate state. Warm and no ice caps.

Throughout the history of the planet, the time spent in a Greenhouse Earth state heavily outweighs the time spent in an Icehouse Earth state. Icehouse Earth is not the normal state for the Earth. I think of it as Icehouse Earth = the Earth has a cold and is sick. Greenhouse Earth = the Earth is warm and healthy.

Q. What caused all the previous transitions from Greenhouse Earth to Icehouse Earth and Icehouse Earth to Greenhouse Earth? It wasn't human beings.

Q. What caused all the previous transitions from glacial to interglacial and interglacial to glacial within Icehouse Earth conditions? It wasn't human beings.

If the planet is warming and humans are helping, why is that bad? If we ARE helping the planet warm, this is a good thing. The planet getting warmer and returning to a Greenhouse state = Earth getting better from it's cold. I would be more worried if there was man made global cooling. I don't want to live in a snowball Earth.

George Carlin

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity? Death Fear (among other unsavory attributes) Predicts Republicanism

 

[bolding mine]

 

 

Further reading on the study: Researchers help define what makes a political conservative @ UC Berkeley

Is politics a major form of insanity?

Recently there aired on History Channel a few new documentaries, including “Lee H. Oswald – 48 Hours to Live”. It was very interesting to hear the few things Oswald said, and see a re-enactment of what he did after shooting JFK. Little is known of him except his living in Russia and his contacting the Soviet, and Cuban, embassies in Mexico City shortly before the assassination. Did he tell them what he was planning? Did they encourage him and promise to help him escape? If Oswald was not killed by Jack Ruby, would it have come out that Russia and/or Cuba was behind the assassination?

 

History is often a record of delusional actions by actors. Hitler’s strategic blunders are some good examples. Oswald, when questioned about killing the president in the police car after he was picked up in the theater, said something like, “What’s the big deal about the president getting killed? There will be a new one in a few days.” Oswald consistently denied anything, including shooting Officer Tibbet. Another delusional action, Jack Ruby believed he would be congratulated for shooting Oswald, and let go!

 

Here is my question. Does anyone know WHEN did Oswald get his job at the school book depository? Was he looking for a job along the published presidential route? Did Russian KGB help Oswald find a job along the parade route? Or was it by chance that he was working there.

 

Does anyone now still believe the assassination was a conspiracy?

Send Grissom and the team back in time to investigate the JFK assassination. Willows would be all bitchy and think that Oswald was guilty, Stokes and Brown would be asking questions right off the bat and set up a re-enactment. Sanders would be doing his hair. Grissom would say "follow the evidence". Cue the Who. By the end of the show Oswald would be cleared but the corrupt Sheriff would quash the investigation

Just a quickie, is all math logical? i.e if its not logical it just aint math

 

2+2=4 true math

2+4=6 false jibba jabba

 

The "rules" to the logic that defines math are man made? i.e BODMAS is just a set of rules we made up to describe the order of any equation.

 

Finally is math a product of logic? sort if inferred from q1

 

 

Regards.

I don't understand why 2+4=6 is considered false, jibba jabba.

2 is 1 and 1. 4 is 1 and 1 and 1 and 1. 6 is 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1.

It is just as logical as 2+2=4.

You should at least be willing to discuss your opinions, however, or else all you're really doing is soap boxing.

 

 

QFT

I am willing to discuss my opinions and thoughts if someone else wants to discuss them. Your reply to my post wasn't to start a discussion though.

But the fact remains that all clones thus far tend to be sick easier and tend to have a lower life-expectancy than normally reproduced animals. We have also never succeeded in transplanting a human brain into another body. Also your brain will still degrade into dementia eventually. Even if the transfer was perfect you brain will eventually lose the ability to self-regulate the human body you will die nerve by nerve in the most painful way imaginable, but at least you will forget about it. You will eventually need numerous pacemakers to tell your heart to beat etc because your brain won't. Even if we clone you the brain that clone will have will not be your brain. When you grow your brain kills connections it doesn't need anymore this most likely leads to memories etc however it means that you and your clones brain are not the same and even if it was the same it would probably have the same or less life-expectancy than your current brain. I think at best you'd probably get to live in a young body at the risk of a lower life expectancy knowing you are going to get sick more often than usual unless we get technology we don't have somewhere in the future. But then some people would trade youth for long-life or the possibility of being able to walk again/see

The best solution would be to mix human cloning with cybernetics. Or clone the mind using technology.

If you could upload your mind onto a computer and then create back ups.

Would the back ups still be considered human clones?

This has already been argued. It wasn't convincing then either.

 

I have not read the whole thread.

I don't need to convince myself of my own opinions and thoughts and my intention is not to convince you or anyone else to have the same opinions and thoughts as me.

We used to say shut up and calculate as it is one of the famous quotes in Quantum Mechanics. My question is should we say so? Why shut up? Science shouldn't stop our inquisitive mind from solving science problems, should it?

If you observe the Quantum world and come to a conclusion "wow, that's crazy, doesn't make any sense" you can assume that the Universe is indeed crazy or you can assume that you yourself are crazy for thinking the Universe is crazy.

Whichever assumption you make, crazy is a constant.

We should experiment on prisoners instead of animals. Prisoners are a bit like normal people, so they would give mrore accurate results anyway. Plenty of countries still have the death penalty too so if there was some lab accident, it wouldn't matter much. We could also extend the death penalty to include sexual crimes and violent crimes. Then you only have prisons full of people who are convictd of money crimes or petty crimes and who are capable and deserving of going through a rehab program.

You improve the justice system and save the animals all in one go.

How far away are we from human cloning ? And is it really ethical if we reach this ?

 

Please express your opinions. (taking into account social mores / scientific hurdles / religious restrictions etc.)

I have no objections to human cloning.

If I was given the option of cloning myself as a way of achieving longer life I would take it.

Can you be sure?

I can be sure that there is nothing special about me or my ears, I am irrelevant.

Can nothing not exist?

Can something not exist?

You have something and nothing.

With something, you can have different kinds of something. With nothing, there is one kind of nothing, nothing.

So, do we live in a Universe of only nothing, a Universe of only something, or a Universe of something and nothing?

We can rule out the Universe of only nothing.

So, now we have either a Universe of only something, or a Universe of something and nothing.

We can observe the something, but we can never observe nothing.

What we think of as nothing, might be something. We just cannot see it.

For us, we can only ever know a Universe of something and nothing, we can never know that the Universe is only something.

There might be something there, but we don't know if there is or not.

Even if at some point, we discover something, something that we previously thought was nothing, you still have more nothing.

Is that nothing, something or nothing?

You can never fully answer this question.

You can only know that the Universe is either something and nothing or only something.

From our perspective it can only be something and nothing because we can never know for certain that nothing is really nothing, it might be something.

It's so peculiar that there has always been a lot of conflict between religion and science. Why do you guys think that is?

Religion doesn't like science because science enlightens people and moves them away from religion. Religion needs to stop science or make science religion friendly. It has succeeded in doing so for thousands of years. If religion does not stop science or fails to make it religion friendly, religion becomes extinct. Religious people obviously don't want religion to become extinct.

Eventually religion WILL become completely extinct and all humanity will embrace science and knowledge and be fully enlightened. Not for a very long time will this happen though.

Religion dominates the 7 billion or so people who live on this planet. There is no room for science without religion at this time.