Strange

This is an "unusual" definition. It is more common to morals as what defines right and wrong, while ethics is about the principles that should be applied in life (perhaps based on the moral rules). For example, a moral rule might be: it is wrong to lie. A corresponding ethical guideline could be: don't lecture people about things you don't know much about, and don't present your opinions as fact. http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/ http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals http://www.ianwelsh.net/ethics-101-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals/ http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2010/10/morality-vs-ethics.html This makes the rest of your post pretty much irrelevant.

Citation needed. Citation needed. Note: offensive and outdated opinions are not valid references.

Please, just stop.

It makes no difference to what is, though. I am assuming that science has a model for your (unrealistic) star type that tells us how they change from blue to blue-green. As such, we don't just "imagine" it to be blue-green, we know it (*). In other words, the evidence points to it being blue-green. (*) with some level of certainty, depending on how good our model is - it may be that, like Betelgeuse, all we can say is "it might be" If you found a blue star of sufficient maturity (or whatever) that you knew that by now it must be blue-green then you will have found it. Is your problem really the time difference between when things happen and when you see them? Or is it that you don't think we can actually know anything unless we see it with out own eyes? (Neither of these is a very realistic attitude.) It is quite hard to find examples where we know enough about cosmological processes so we can say with any certainty that the thing we observe has changed or no longer exists. But there are plenty of examples the other way round: for example even though we see the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago, we know with pretty much 100% certainty that it has not gone nova in the last 8 minutes. Even though we won't see it shining away merrily for 8 minutes or maybe 12 hours, if it is night time. (But see Larry Niven's Inconstant Moon for a great short story around this idea!) And the same is true for stars that we are seeing as they were years or even thousands of years ago. We know they are still there largely unchanged. And: Do you have a problem with the fact that thunder and lightning happen at the same time, even though you nearly always hear the thunder some (variable) time after you see the lightning? Does this mean they didn't really happen at the same time in your mind?

It was (a) true, (b) off-topic and © better answered by Ophiolite. So, no you don't.

deleted

I understand what you say. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is a problem. As you have already said "it is blue green now" I don't understand why you are asking the question. Let me try that again more slowly so you can follow it: If... the... star... is.... blue... green... now... then... it... is... blue.... green. OK? Or, to put it another way: it is blue green now. Or, as someone else might out it: it is blue green now Or, to use the answer you provided: it is blue green now So, I think the answer might be: it is blue green now. What do you think? it is blue green now? Or don't you believe what you wrote? Do you have a problem with the fact that thunder and lightning happen at the same time, even though you nearly always hear the thunder some variable time after you see the lightning.?Does this mean they didn't really happen at the same time in your universe? You won't know how much later the thunder will be until you know how far away the lightning was. You can work that out when you hear the thunder. Because you know they happen at the same time. Similarly, Betelgeuse may have already gone nova. But we won't know that until we see it happen. At which point we will know that the star we were looking at in 2015 no longer existed. I cannot understand why you have a problem with this.

If you want to publish your "discovery" in a respected journal (which you need to do if it is to be taken seriously by the scientific community) then they will be much tougher on you than this forum has been.

I assumed he meant "this whole thread so far" (with an implication that he wasn't going to read any more). But maybe he hoped that people would stop contributing after his comment, so it would still be true for the entire thread. Or maybe he is prescient and knows that, no matter how long this thread continues, it will never be worth reading. (We could probably have guessed that from the first post.)

To find out if it is worth reading. Of course.

Every one knows that there is a difference between the time something happens and the time we hear or see it. But you are the only person who thinks it is a problem. Do you have the same problem with everyday events like thunder where there is a noticeable difference between when you see it, when you hear it and when it actually happened? So what? If it exists now, then it exists now. Isn't that obvious? If it happens today, then it happens today. Whether we see it or not. This is even dafter than the "if a tree falls in a forest" question.

You have refused so far. And got quite heated when asked.

You agreed to the rules of the forum. If you are not willing to follow them then there are consequences.

Good point!

Before worrying about where a soul or spirit comes from, perhaps you should find out whether there is such a thing. (I see no reason to think there is.)

So whay are you attacking atheists, who don't have a belief (regarding gods, at least)? As Arete said he didn't care about god or beliefs, by your logic, people must be a higher priority: your should praise him, not attack him.

OK, funny. But seriously, why did you create a thread attacking atheists? It is four pages now and you still haven't explained why atheists (who are few in number and not an organised group) should be singled out for your criticism. Why do you think this (fairly random) 10 to 20% of the population has a special burden to be fair, peaceful, etc? Wouldn't it be more effective to target the other 80 to 90% of the population? At least they form large groups with a fairly consistent set of beliefs and some sort of organization. That sounds like a much easier group to communicate with and try to persuade.

Why must you misinterpret it that way? What drives you to do that? Actually, if you think that someone not caring about the existence of God or gods (and not wanting to get together with others who don't care) is equivalent to not caring about people, then that rather blows your atheist cover and confirms the "fundie" label. That would certainly explain why you created this thread to attack atheists. Or is it just that you think Arete is the "wrong sort" atheist? Like some sort of heretic to be burned at the stake in the name of fairness, honesty, open-mindedness and peace.

Yes.

Who is angry? Do you always assume that people who disagree with you are angry? And yet all you have done is repeat the same incorrect assertions. What is the point of asking if you are going to ignore the answers?

While many electronic clocks do rely on one moving part (a crystal) for time keeping, there is no sense in which you can say that distance is used measure time because there is no net movement, just a tiny constant oscillation. So what is being measured is the rate (1 / time) at which the crystal oscillates.

People consider books, food, buildings and people sacred. If you refuse to accept that because it is what people believe, then I don't accept that an idea can be sacred either; because that just someone's belief.

Memory is notoriously unreliable (and I was only 8 when the paper was published in 1965*) so I thought I would look it up. The only reference I can find to clock speed in the original paper is the rather general: "In fact, shrinking dimensions on an integrated structure makes it possible to operate the structure at higher speed for the same power per unit area" http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~fussell/courses/cs352h/papers/moore.pdf (But presumably, as part of your conspiracy theory, Intel have made the University of Texas put up a fake version.) * I am very impressed that you have such a clear memory 50 years on.

If everything is moving in parallel paths, then you are back to a 1D model. To take your traffic light analogy again. If there are multiple lanes on the road, then the cars in the adjacent lanes will stay the same distance away. The fact that the light is delayed will not make them appear to be receding. Whether it is a pull or a push, what is supposed to be causing this force (which appear to remain constant regardless of distance)? Please show the maths for the general case of N objects.