Moontanman

This idea of life conforming to the wavelength of light can be seen in plants that grow deep under water. Various colors of plants grow at various depths taking  advantage of the filtering of light by water. By the time you get down to around 30 feet red light all but vanishes, blood is florescent green not red and plants that grow deep underwater are various colors from red to brown to yellow. Various pigments are used to supplement chlorophyll and even shift light from UV to visible light all to harvest the sun as efficiently as possible. 

I see no reason this wouldn't happen on other planets under the light of strange stars. 

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

For myself, faith and religion, are not offensive ( as it may be to Moon ), because, although they lack any existential evidence, some people have a 'need' for them The delusion of faith, or religion, gives them peace of mind and relieves their fear of the unknown. I see no need to take a crutch away from an emotional cripple.
So, while I have no need for it, I tolerate it.

But when it starts getting 'in your face' with ridiculous garbage like 'revealed faith', most sensible people, and R Dawkins certainly is one, will push back. My respect for him has gone up even further.

And by the way, didn't you guys ( Exchemist, Moon, Charon and JC ) read ... the OP only respects Physicists 😄😄 .

It's really not religion that pisses me off, it's the people who not only believe but think they have the right to dictate how I live based on their fairy tales. 

3 minutes ago, Gian said:

CharonY

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

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

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

Why is it silly to critique religion? Religion is in desperate need of critical thinking, in fact religion is a prime source of nonsensical people deceptively tryin to denigrate the very thing that Richard Dawkins is knowledgeable about he has every right to defend Science from. 

8 minutes ago, Gian said:

CharonY

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

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

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

 

MOONTANMAN

 

Honey it's not disrespect to disagree

GIAN🙂XXX

 I'm not your honey, and disagreement is not what we are talking about, we are talking about lying to influence people against the reality of the scientific method. Any and all deception is worthy of being denigrated as a reasonable topic of discussion. 

50 minutes ago, Gian said:

MOONTANMAN

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."

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

PS I respect you and everyone else here💘💋

PPS Most people I know are atheists

 

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

Both seem to have got worse in my lifetime

GIAN🙂XXX

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. 

22 minutes ago, Gian said:

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.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

You are trying to poison the well by being a disrespectful jerk, Dawky... really? Religion deserves no respect and Richard Dawkins gives religion none and rightfully so. You seem to be disappointed we don't bow down to your nonsensical disrespect of Dawkins. I respect anyone who stands up to the idea of a god as nonsense and I lack not only a belief in a god I lack respect for you... personally! 

15 minutes ago, Gian said:

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.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

I don't get religion either and I am basically uneducated, I just require the things I believe to be real actually exist. 

9 minutes ago, Gian said:

Discuss!

Can people here define free speech please, and with a philosophical rationale justify how people should react to it?

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

There was a time when I would have supported free speech unconditionally... then came the people who use free speech to make false claims and the gullibility of people to influence them in directions that are anti social at best... see the maga movement. 

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Who would you choose as 'experts' in a discussion about garbage such as 'revealed faith' ?

Since "revealed truth" is simply telling people what you want them to believe regardless of any conflict with reality, possibly actors would be the experts to use? 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Blessing

Let's say that in principle an expansion and a finite universe are proposed. Later on, there is a big explosion, or big bang. Then, the inflationary model emerges that tries to explain what the big bang cannot. This is what I understand from reading on Wikipedia

The expansion is real not something mathematical or made up. The term Big Bang was coined to denigrate the idea of an expanding universe after the expansion was discovered. 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

So it is one thing to consider the big bang inflation, and another would be the inflationary theory that emerged several years later with Alan Guth, more than 30 years after George Gamow proposed the explosion.

It is my understanding that the term Big bang was coined after the expansion was discovered not before. Do you have a link? 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

I share a quote from the conclusion, which seems to me that we can conclude that it is a complex topic with many gaps and that perhaps it lacks light years of research. Despite the enormous attempts and current advances:

??? What is the take away from this?

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

"We know that the idea of a Big Bang is rather naive in the sense that it is an extrapolation down to t = 0 of a model based on a theory that breaks down at least at the Planck time (because at such densities ones needs an eagerly awaited quantum theory of gravitation)."

We know that the Big Bang Theory is not complete due to it not encompassing quantum mechanics but to say it is naive? I'm not sure where you are coming from on that. 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

If you want we can talk about my religion, yes. Something I can tell you is that Yeshu is an ancient Hebrew name, he is a man and not a god.

Not interested, the name threw me, I regret asking, if you want to discuss religion please start a new thread. 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Regarding the topic, it seems to me that the agnostic or atheist Einstein brought up a quote: "There are two infinite things, the universe and the stupidity of humans, and I am not sure about the first."

Please explain why Einstein's atheism is relevant? 

11 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

But come on, maybe it was one of those phrases attributed to Einstein but said by someone else. Although yes, I understand that it was the proposed expansion of the universe that opened the doors to the idea among physicists that the universe had had an origin (later it would have an end) and would not be eternal, nor infinite.

The universe can be both infinite and have a beginning... t=0 is the key. 

7 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

That's right, Yeshu is the Anointed One. An exemplary man who only did good things by obeying his God.

Interesting, I've never heard of Yeshu but you would need to start another thread to explain it to me. 

7 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

I understand that Einstein was not very convinced that there had been a big bang either. But the expansion proposed an origin of the universe, and in those times it was thought to be infinite. Is it correct according to your information?

None of that sounds familiar to me, quite possibly someone else can answer that. 

Just now, MigL said:

No, not you., Moon.
The term 'revealed faith'.

Revealed Faith is a very popular term in certain circles that believe in magic. 

2 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Hello, blessing in the name of Yeshu

I didn't know. I just read that it was a certain Fred Hoyle.

However, it seems that this has not affected the theory itself, which remained with that title.

 

Yes but the term was not a description made by the people who actually supported the idea of the universe having a beginning. They originally described it as an expansion of space and time not an explosion into space and time. The term Big Bang obfuscates the real issue. 

BTW Yeshu? I am not familiar with that term but I will assume it is some sort of religious greeting.  

6 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

I mention, I am neither in favor of one point nor the other.

I think that calling the inflation proposal of the universe a big bang may not be the most accurate. I could be wrong, yes, but it seems to me that inflation is an alternative proposal to the big bang.

Calling the big bang inflation, instead of explanation, is perhaps just one way of saying it.

The big bang would also seem like something that inflates or expands in itself, but it would be an explosion, not just an expansion, as I have read.

The inflation model is then proposed to try to explain in a relatively easy way things that the big bang cannot explain.

In summary, what I understand is that the standard big bang model is one thing and the cosmic inflation model is another.

The big bang would be an unusual explosion that could not be appreciated by physics in this universe directly, where it occurs in itself and does not travel through outer space. At least, if I understand correctly

Inflation would be another model where the universe expands without the need for a big bang or a great explosion.

That's what I'm understanding about the topic.

Blessing

Are you aware that the term "Big Bang" was a derogatory term used by proponents of the steady state theory to try and demean the idea? Big Bang was never meant to be an accurate description of the beginning of the universe.   

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

How is that different from regular faith, Moon ?
It just sounds much more 'pompous',

Pompous? Moi? 

1 minute ago, MigL said:

What the hell is 'revealed faith' anyway ?
 

It's the word of the all powerful Yahweh!!! Pay attention... 🫠

15 hours ago, Gian said:

JC MACSWELL

So after 10¹⁴ years, that's it. No more life?

GIAN🙂

I doubt that assertion can be made with 100% certainty... Possibly you can say that for life as we know it but... life finds a way!

I would say that "revealed truth" is one of the most dangerous concepts we currently face. When you have a group of people who view the world through a lens of "faith" it becomes possible to pretty much manipulate people of faith into believing anything.  

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is just spam for the link in OP

I missed that dammit! 

Are your shirts made of polyester or a polyester blend? Polyester tends to preserve body odor and is difficult to removed body odor. It was one of the problems we worried about when making polyester. The problem was never really solved that I recall.   

What do you want to discuss here? 

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

Seems that breasts bring out  the child in all of us males ...

🍼😁🍼 boobas! 

11 hours ago, Airbrush said:

 

Why does Titan have such a dense atmosphere?   Google says:

Abundant Nitrogen: Titan’s lower atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (about 94.2%), which contributes significantly to its density ¹. Nitrogen molecules are relatively heavy and tend to remain close to the moon’s surface due to its gravity.

Methane and Hydrogen: Alongside nitrogen, Titan’s atmosphere contains methane (approximately 5.65%) and a trace amount of hydrogen (about 0.099%) ¹. The extreme cold temperatures on Titan allow gaseous methane to exist in the atmosphere while liquid methane pools on the surface ¹.

Retaining Atmosphere: Titan’s gravity is strong enough to retain its atmosphere more effectively compared to other moons in our solar system ². Unlike our Moon, which lacks a substantial atmosphere, Titan’s colder conditions help slow down gas molecules, making it easier for the moon to hold onto its gases ³.

Heat Liberation: Over time, heat from infalling objects and the decay of radioactive elements within Titan’s rocks liberated much of the trapped gas, creating the dense nitrogen-rich atmosphere we observe today ⁴.

Any idea why Jupiter's major moons do not have atmospheres? They are well within the similar gravitational pull of Titan. 

10 minutes ago, Gian said:

MOONTANMAN

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. 

GIAN🙂XXX

I would have to assume that by the time we do seek to build a base on Titan we will be harvesting materials for our ships and bases from objects already in space as asteroids or comets so hauling materials out of a gravity well will slowly become irrelevant as obtaining materials in space become dominant. But the idea of having bots come in and build before we get there is a good idea for sure. 

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I have only had the opportunity to research a small sample ( 12) in the course of a longish life, but in spite of the considerable variety of shapes and sizes I have never observed any musculature in breasts, even though I belonged to a rowing club for over 30 years and married a rower.

(I did once try to weigh them though. This arose from a discussion of the old-fashioned appreciative remark “Blimey, you don’t get many of them to the pound!”  - a reference to how one used to buy fruit at the greengrocer. She was a nurse, so was happy, in fact highly amused,  to enter into the spirit of the exercise. In her case about a lb each so it was true, for her.)

I think I'd have to have some hands on investigation into this phenomenon to be sure!