Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2015 - 04:11pm PT
|
Any body heard from HFCS hasn't posted on this thread since the 22nd? Not like him to not post in 6 days.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2015 - 04:34pm PT
|
"It is one thing to simply assert that you don’t choose to believe the science, in spite of a mountain of data supporting it. It’s another to mask your ignorance in such a disingenuous way, by using pseudo-scientific, emotion-laden arguments and trading on your professional credentials. Surely this quality, which reflects either self-delusion or, worse still, a willingness to intentionally deceive others, is of great concern when someone is vying for control of the nuclear red button." -Krauss regarding Carson
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2015 - 04:36pm PT
|
Any body heard from . . .
Nor Dr Ed. I'm curious what his opinion would be of the most recent physics expounded here.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2015 - 05:29pm PT
|
HFCS; good to see you are alive and hurling posts.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2015 - 08:10am PT
|
Craig Fry: Time dilation, speeding up time, slowing down time; are just other "states of mind"
I believe the good Doctor has it right. To wit, then, one might ask what “states of mind” are (er, . . . but then I’d be in the wrong thread).
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2015 - 09:35am PT
|
Seems as though our eyes and awareness are pervy to the speed of light. Our eyes see light for what it does. And our awareness can race thoughts and emotions just about as fast. Only our bodies are slow to move..
Jammer, thanks ive been bone'in up on the plancks : ) I like what mr. Planck said here:
Planck was a member of the Lutheran Church in Germany.[25] However, Planck was very tolerant towards alternative views and religions.[26] In a lecture in 1937 entitled "Religion und Naturwissenschaft" he suggested the importance of these symbols and rituals related directly with a believer's ability to worship God, but that one must be mindful that the symbols provide an imperfect illustration of divinity. He criticized atheism for being focused on the derision of such symbols, while at the same time warned of the over-estimation of the importance of such symbols by believers.[27]
Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."[28]
Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith, "faith" interpreted as being similar to "having a working hypothesis". For example, the causality principle isn't true or false, it is an act of faith. Thereby Planck may have indicated a view that points toward Imre Lakatos' research programs process descriptions, where falsification is mostly tolerable, in faith of its future removal.[26] He also said: "Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[29]
On the other hand, Planck wrote, "...'to believe' means 'to recognize as a truth,' and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary occurrences contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."[30]
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2015 - 12:01pm PT
|
When talking about time dilation, it is subjective, of course. Time doesn't actually change, it just feels like it.
BB. If you are going to play scientist and work with falsifiable hypotheses, would you apply it to the existence of God, or do you start from a position that he exists, and even questioning his existence is forbidden?
That is one of the big differences between science and religion. Religion is not to be questioned. Most texts include harsh sentences for those who question the basic assumption.
Coming from a fairly religious family and upbringing, my gradual opinion that god DID not exist took some courage. Now I can talk about religion with my old man all day long without upsetting him. Some of the arguments are found in the Bible itself. It is inconsistent. People certainly interpret various Bible passages in totally different ways. Just look at those prosperity preachers who live in 7 million dollar houses, have private jets, and happily take from the poor and vulnerable.
Their churches are filled. That doesn't make it right.
Have any of you watched John Oliver's show on this very topic? Its hilarious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2015 - 01:57pm PT
|
That is one of the big differences between science and religion. Religion is not to be questioned. Most texts include harsh sentences for those who question the basic assumption.
This bull pucky Base. Glad I've never been to a church that didnt allow questioning. I hear of an awful alot of Christians that don't follow what Jesus said. He did away with the Law. But gave one. To love God with all your heart, and to love your brother as you love yourself. It sounds easy but obliviously it ain't. People are dam determined to justify their so-called good actions by instituting laws for which other people need to follow so as to be included in their little click. Childish! People need to learn the example Jesus gave in the town square when everyone wanted to kill the woman for committing adultery.
My science investigation goes much like Plancks. The more I learn the more I believe in intelligent design : )
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2015 - 02:10pm PT
|
Jesus was different. I can't recall any place where he threatened eternal damnation. He was all about love and the poor. I am certain that he would be a democrat...
Intelligent Design? Why did the designer wait 3 billion years AFTER life formed to create complex life? And then, why did he waste the first huge blast of vertebrates on extinct dinosaurs? He got rid of them at the close of the Cretaceous.
The more that you look at the fossil record, the more random it looks. I've taken paleontology, still do a little invertebrate paleontology in my job, and if it was created, the creator sure screwed up a lot. Why did he toss in the Permian extinction, for example? It wiped out 95% of all marine life, and 75% of all terrestrial life.
An overwhelming majority of all life became extinct.
No need for a designer. Really. It is obvious.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2015 - 06:55pm PT
|
Science texts are devoid of artistry.
most texts are devoid of artistry, science literature is full of artistry
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2015 - 09:33pm PT
|
Why did the designer wait 3 billion years AFTER life formed to create complex life?
You're still in brainwashed caveman mode.
The first material creation was Brahman and was extremely intelligent.
The stupid modern gross material mental speculation fabrications by fools like Darwin and their spawns
are what keeps you modern fools completely in the dark, always bewildered and masquerading as learned ......
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2015 - 10:14pm PT
|
We could assume it's held together with silly putty and snot, too. "Must assume'... lol. Now that is some clear-headed science.
Well he also says we must assume QM ; )
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2015 - 10:22pm PT
|
Intelligent Design? Why did the designer wait 3 billion years AFTER life formed to create complex life? And then, why did he waste the first huge blast of vertebrates on extinct dinosaurs? He got rid of them at the close of the Cretaceous.
Well if evolution tells us anything, the world wouldn't be what it is today without the actions of yesterday. So if He hadn't extinguished dinosaurs then we wouldn't have fossil fuels today? And you'd be out a job ; ) sounds intelligent to me : )
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2015 - 08:28am PT
|
Intelligent Design? Why did the designer wait 3 billion years AFTER life formed to create complex life? And then, why did he waste the first huge blast of vertebrates on extinct dinosaurs? He got rid of them at the close of the Cretaceous.
Ironic, don't you think? Use the Turing model if it appears to be intelligent it is... if it fools us into believing it's intelligent it is. Well, there appears to be an order in the universe, we call it physics, is that enough... does that pass Turing's test? It is funny how things come around.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2015 - 08:49am PT
|
BB, that is incorrect. Oil, gas, and coal, the "fossil fuels," are the result of a couple of periods where organic material was deposited and preserved. The organics aren't vertebrates, they are too rare. So no. Your gasoline doesn't come from buried dinosaurs. I know that one company found a shark tooth in a Woodford core, but sharks didn't contribute much to the biomass which was deposited. Sharks shed their teeth normally, you know. I used to go hunting for shark teeth in the Codell Sandstone in Colorado.
In that area, the oldest sedimentary rock is the Harding Sandstone. It is thin in the area I worked, only a few feet thick, but it is loaded with fish scales. I mean loaded with them.
Hydrocarbon source rocks are shales with a high total organic carbon percentage. That carbon came from small critters; algae, plankton, bacteria, the odd mollusk. Most of the creatures were microscopic. Overwhelmingly so. Coal is a little different, but I can tell you how it forms if you like. Coals are fairly common in the subsurface. Some coals cover thousands of square miles, but are too deep and thin to mine.
You can get methane from certain coals, though. There was a big boom in coalbed methane wells a decade or so back. I never really got into that play type, but I read a lot on the topic.
The petroleum source rocks are fairly rare. In normal conditions, those dead bugs get eaten by other life, so it is difficult to preserve organic carbon. You need a reducing, anoxic environment. Then it must be buried until it reaches a certain temperature-pressure window.
The source rock for all oil and gas in Oklahoma is overwhelmingly from the Woodford Shale, which is late Devonian in age. The Woodford is much older than dinosaurs. The carbon rich shale must be buried to great depth for it to generate oil and gas. The temperature-pressure windows are well known. There is an oil window, and if it gets cooked further there is a gas window. Heat it further, and you get gilsonite and graphite type deposits.
It all has to be just right. That is why oil is not found everywhere. You need accommodation space (a tectonic basin) for it to be buried, and that basin needs to be deep enough to bury the shale until it reaches the oil window.
All of this can be learned from Wiki, but their pages are very general. You get the rough view, but in reality, it is much more complicated. I've found that to often be the case with wiki. When I look at topics that I've spent my life looking at, I find it pretty general, although correct.
So, BB. I am assuming that your case is that those sedimentary basins were created by God? Deep and difficult to access?
As for Werner's belief in humans being around for billions of years, there is no evidence for that. Not a bit. Nothing. So, they cremated themselves, right Werner?
If you look at the history of life, human evidence is rare. Did anyone see the recent Nova episode about the discovery of a new Hominid species in South Africa? I had a talk with my evolution professor friend last week about that very topic. It is super exciting. Although their brain's were only a little bit larger than a chimp's, it appears that all of these skeletons were deliberately placed in this inaccessible part of the cave.
It is really exciting. There has always been a gap between Australopithecus and Homo Erectus. In that gap lies Homo Habilus, a species whose fossils are very rare and incomplete.
In that cave, they found over ten different skeletons, and unlike most sites, where the primate fossils are mixed in with thousands of other bones such as antelopes, in this cave it is all hominid fossils. It is an incredible find. It appears that they may be the earliest hominid species after Australopithecus.
They had very small brains compared to H Erectus or us, yet it appears that they deliberately placed their dead in this cave. Really cool.
I bring this stuff up because I am not limited to a rigid spiritual dogma. New evidence that changes things doesn't bother me. If you start out with the premise that God is the creator of all things, then it is like working with your hands tied behind your back. Impossible to work with an open mind.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2015 - 09:01am PT
|
Paul, your writing is priceless sometimes.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2015 - 10:13am PT
|
Use the Turing model if it appears to be intelligent it is... if it fools us into believing it's intelligent it is.
A test is not the same as a proof. Turing recognized and wrote about the difference. Go back to his original paper.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2015 - 07:50pm PT
|
I would very much like to know what Ed Hartouni thinks of the idea that were one to speed up in velocity relative to the speed of light (the constant by which all change is put into relative proportion), one would move in slow motion and become more and more translucent as one approached c, due to the moving observer having fewer velocital possibles per cubic unit of space aka fewer imprints of themselves in the multiverse in each Planck of space aka less dark energy per Planck of space aka a narrower/more dispersed light cone aka less relative chemical interaction with the that which is in each Planck of space.
not sure what to make of this...
first off, if you are in an inertial reference frame everything is the same... you can't tell what the velocity of that frame is... that is the statement of relativistic invariance.
what I don't understand from your description is who or what is becoming "more translucent" or even what that process means...
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2015 - 10:06pm PT
|
Is The Daniel related to The Donald?
He sure sounds like him : (
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!