Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gian

  1. 2 hours ago, exchemist said:

    But surely, if he was complaining about the supposed need to be unduly respectful towards religion over 20 years ago, then today's "cancel culture" (if it exists) shows him to have been rather prescient, doesn't it?

    Or are you suggesting it is his iconoclasm that has brought "cancel culture" about? 

    Yes I am suggesting that Dawky's encouragement to disrespect other's opinions at the 2002 Ted talk has contributed to intolerance. I mean what other effect could it have?

    "Stop Being damned Respectful" means stop being damned respectful




    It's silly to critique religion if using a stupid methodology, same way It's stupid to try to critique science by using a skipping rope.

    It's not critique that's wrong, critique is never wrong. It's the methodology the Dawk uses that's wrong.


  2. CharonY

    Of course it's silly, and it's precisely that methodology that Dawky uses to "critique" religion, so he's being equally silly.



    PS My words were that racism and intolerance seem to have got worse over the last 15y. I did not say I thought they had only appeared in my lifetime. It was all there anyway




    35 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    I don't give a shit what other people believe or do not believe, all that is important is what you can show and what you are showing is disrespect for reality. 

    Honey it's not disrespect to disagree


  3. 1 hour ago, exchemist said:

    He doesn’t strike me as making a fool of himself in the remarks you quote. He seems to be arguing, rather intemperately, for people to feel free to attack religion, instead of, as he seems to think, showing it undue respect. Well, it’s a point of view, and not self-evidently silly, it seems to me. Why do you think it makes him look a fool?



    Well because in 2002 he was encouraging people to be disrespectful, and 21y later he's weeping about cancel culture.

    And the "logic" of his ridiculous book The God Delusion is about as logical as me saying that Dawky and all other scientists are stupid because they believe the Earth is flat.

    The Flat Earth Society have made scientific experiments which they claim prove the Earth is flat.

    Therefore as Dawky et al are all scientists, they must of logical necessity believe the Earth is flat.

    That's how ridiculous he's being in his anti-religious methodology. He's just one of those atheists who needs God in order to have something not to believe in.

    That's why when I asked a priest friend of my mum and dad about Dawky, he replied "I don't think we're particularly worried by Professor Dawkins."



    PS I respect you and everyone else here💘💋

    PPS Most people I know are atheists


    53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    If you think that antisemitism and racism is a recent thing, boy do I have news for you...

    Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century. 

    Both seem to have got worse in my lifetime


  4. On 4/2/2024 at 3:28 PM, MigL said:

    Stems from the  new attitude permeating the Western world; that whatever you 'feel' cannot be wrong...

    I think it's more a case of what you "feel" should not be dismissed out-of hand. I suspect alot of scientific discovery starts with someone just having a feeling, or hunch about something.

    But Dawky and people like him were extremely unwise in the so-called "atheist spring" post 9/11 to encourage people to be disrespectful, which is another word for bigoted.

    What Dawky's too dumb to realise is that if he encourages bigotry in one department eg religion, it never stops there.

    Given that over the last 15y or so there seems to have been a noticeable increase in racism and in particular antisemitism, Dawky should cut out the rabble rousing.



  5. On 4/2/2024 at 3:26 PM, Moontanman said:

    What do you want to discuss here? 

    Discuss Dawky's comments.

    And I put this in Physics & Astronomy because not being a scientist I respect astrophysicists. I suppose an "Evolutionary Biologist" only describes what's already there. 


    I guess an astrophysicist needs to be able to think laterally, outside the box. That's why Dawky can't get religion and makes such a fool of himself.



  6. 22 hours ago, CharonY said:

    I think the quotes from Dawkins are missing the mark and certain folks are weaponizing that kind of arguments...

    Can people here define free speech please, and with a philosophical rationale justify how people should react to opinions they strongly disagree with?

    I hope no one here agrees with sacking people for their opinions



  7. "Let's stop being so damned respectful! Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness... Lets stop being damned respectful!"



    "I think it's very sad especially in universities... where you should be free to speak your mind and to listen to something even if it's something you don't like, and it's very tragic that universities seem to have bought into the idea that if you hear something you don't like you should shut them up and refuse to let them speak"

    RICHARD DAWKINS bleating to Piers Morgan about cancel culture 2023

  8. I read that by about the year AD10¹⁴ the last stars will be dead, so no more light in the universe,  and the universe will leave the stelliferous era and enter the dark degenerate era.

    The universe will have evaporated away altogether by AD10¹⁰⁰ 

    If species are still around in the year 10¹⁴, I assume life will no longer be possible with no more light.

    If so, will it in theory be possible for spectacularly advanced species to repair, prolong or create new stars and thus prolong the stelliferous era? Not indefinitely of course, but for alot longer?




    Well I'm just thinking that if the explorers have to start from scratch the equipment they've brought with them may malfunction, or there's other difficulties they don't know about. 

    But I guess it's axiomatic that they'd have to take enough oxygen with them for the return trip in case they can't harvest any on Titan.

    I guess the most difficult and expensive thing about space travel remains getting out of the Earth's gravity well, and the greater the mass the more expensive it all works out. 

    I just wonder if sending equipment separately and unmanned would reduce costs. Plus for the explorers to know the tech was already up and running, already generating power and growing foodstuffs would be reassuring.

    But it may be better to undertake the whole project all at once. 


  10. Moontanman

    I guess it may be advantageous to send unmanned spacecraft with all this equipment accompanied by robots and ai which could get it all set up and functioning before the human explorers arrive?


  11. 4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    Yet is still requires energy to make the electricity to run "electrolysis machines" where do you get the energy?

    You'd have to take either nuclear or some other source of potential energy with you (batteries?) plus some oxygen and petrol to get started I guess


  12. 4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    You would have to have an energy source of some kind, nuclear is almost certainly necessary. Controlled fusion would be ideal and of course will be possible in 20 years. 

    Well obviously fusion would be best, but meanwhile they could set up electrolysis machines to separate the oxygen and hydrogen and thus - combined with nitrogen - make air. Then set up methane generators in a big barn.

    Plus, I assume that at those temperatures foodstuffs would be preserved almost indefinitely.

    If the scientists had packed a stack of hamburgers and bread rolls in the Huygens Probe, I bet when explorers finally get to Titan in eg 50y time and find the Probe, the first thing they could do is have a Big Mac as the stuff is still fresh


    Dr Lorenz says the light levels are like a deeply overcast day here on Earth. But yes there is obviously insufficient light to grow crops. He also says there's never any break in the clouds.

    But I thought that with shed loads of methane readily available as fuel,  plus water ice, explorers could generate breathable air and electricity to create heat and UV lights to grow stuff in big greenhouses.

    Wikipedia says

    "Titan is primarily composed of ice and rocky material, which is likely differentiated into a rocky core surrounded by various layers of ice, including a crust of ice and a subsurface layer of ammonia-rich liquid water."

    Sounds like there's everything human beings need



  14. Dr Ralph Lorenz who was one of the scientists on the Cassini Huygens project which explored Titan tells me


    "The Sun at noon on Titan = 0.1% of noon sun on Earth but this is still 500x brighter than full moonlight, you’d see fine, as proven by the Huygens images"


    He also adds that yes cloud cover is total so explorers wouldn't be able to see the night sky or Saturn from the Titanian surface.








    That's interesting about light levels, particularly regarding explorers growing stuff on Titan.

    Obviously it's far too cold to grow stuff on the surface but I wonder if there'd be enough light to grow crops in giant greenhouses.

    Plus there's shed loads of water ice on Titan so sources of water and oxygen are already there, although I guess farmers would have to take a fair amount of compost with them to get started lol.

    And once oxygen has been harvested, I guess the plentiful supplies of methane could be used to generate heat and more light.




    O.1% of the sun's light??? So essentially it's about as light on the surface as a starry night here on Earth. I think Prof John Zarnecki (of Huygens Probe fame) said it would be like a deeply overcast day here on Earth, which given the distance I was surprised at. 

    I think it's probable cloud cover is total on Titan, so future space tourists won't be able to see Saturn hanging in the sky.

    I'll see if I get in touch with one of the Huygens scientists to find out then report back here.




  16. Is it known why Titan happens to have at thick atmosphere when none of the other moons in the solar system do? And from the surface of Titan, is there ever a break in the clouds (doesn't look like it) so that Titanians (I know there arent any but maybe one day) can see Saturn and the sunshine from the surafce?



  17. 15 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Perhaps a better question is why are so many insecure people worried about other people and how they define themselves? Why not just acknowledge their view is different from yours and go on with your day?

    Agreed, and the numbers we're talking about are very small. I believe the incidence of gender dysphoria is about 1 in 10,000.

    The purported objection is about self-defined women using single sex environments like toilets and changing rooms, or participating in women's sports.

    But I wonder if those reasons are genuine, or just an excuse to raise objections

  18. I've just heard Richard Dawkins saying that one individual (a zillion years ago) had 2 children. One is the ancestor of baboons, the other the ancestor of humans.

    Would all the subsequent evolution of the 2 species have to be descended from literally that one single creature? Or could it have been several such creatures, even hundreds, who all had 2 such children each?



  19. On 9/6/2023 at 1:29 AM, mistermack said:

    Nazi Germany grew out of desperate times. People act differently under pressure... 

    The common factor is human nature, it hasn't gone away, and it's not just Nazis on Jews. 

    Agreed. Germany was hit by the 29 Crash and slump vastly more than other countries including the US.

    Plus, everyone was terrified of communism, with good reason. When people are frightened, especially when frightened for their children, they can do some very strange things, including electing Hitler to the chancellorship.

  20. There's been alot of talk over the last few years about "what is a woman?" and whether someone can just declare themselves to be another sex. "It's not that I don't empathise with transgenders" says mega-feminist Julie Bindel "but they can't use the term woman. That word is taken."

    But what does she mean by taken? My ethical question is... who owns words? Who decides what they mean?

    With personal names, other than certain specific legal contexts (eg passport, obtaining benefits) anyone is free to call themselves anything they like. I can call myself Queen Boadicea if I feel like it.

    There are dictionaries, and scientific terms, but neither is enforceable by law. So what's to stop an individual saying "My personal definition of a woman is this;"etc etc

    Who owns words?




  21. There seems to be a drift at the moment towards ai and machines taking over people's jobs.

    I'm sure no robot would be stupid enough to want to be president or prime minister, but suppose for the sake of argument, ALL paid employment became automated, so no more paid employment for any human beings whatsoever.

    I suppose all money in the economy would eventually flow to the owners of the means of production that is the human proprietors of the robots and ai.

    So the proletariat would be left with nothing. The robot-owning aristocracy could buy and sell from each other, and the proles being penniless would have to go back to medieval self-sufficiency working the soil by hand.

    Is this accurate?



  22. Is there any such thing as a totally free market worldwide?

    For it to be totally free, surely there would have to be no import or export restrictions anywhere, and no immigration or emigration controls.

    If so, what would such a world look like?

    Sounds like the employees of the world would be constantly moving around following the highest wages/ lowest living costs, and corporations would be constantly migrating to where there's the highest profits/ lowest outgoings.

    There would be no community and no more nation states. Is this accurate? 🤔 🥴🤯



  23. 41 minutes ago, Janus said:

    The issue would be how would you make that bomb focus all it's released energy towards accelerating the probe?

    The closest example we have in this respect is an underground nuclear bomb test from 1957.  The bomb was placed at the bottom of a shaft with a iron cap. When the bomb was detonated, it blew the cap off.  Estimates have put the speed of the cap at 5 times the escape velocity from the Earth.

    Now, given the size of the cap and the density of Iron, you can get an estimate of how much KE it had.  If you then take that KE and apply it to something with the mass of a cellphone, you can get its equivalent speed. It works out to ~ 2% of light speed.  And this was using a nuclear devise many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.

    To reach 50% of c, it would have had to had more than 625 times more energy than that (At this velocity you'd need to use the relativistic KE formula to get an accurate value)

    Thanks Janus!

    Well that sounds a bit more hopeful, especially if launched from the moon with its gravity of 16%G.

    If a nuke 100x Hiroshima were exploded at the bottom of a shaft on the moon, I reckon that could get my cellphone past 50%c?



  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.