God and All - Thoughts on humans, evolution, religion and more

age of the universe ???

2009-08-08T17:34:00.000-07:00

The universe is said to be about 14 billion years old,
however i disagree.
Since the universe is expanding at 72 KM per sec per megaparsec
(Equals one million parsecs (3.26 million light-years))

and 1 parsec = 3.26 light years

72KM per sec = 44.7387258411 miles per second

and light travels at 186,000 miles per second

then, at4157.47207816 mega parsecs, everything is moving away from you at the speed of light
since light CANT get back to you, this would limit the visable universe
at 13,553,358,974.8016 light years (away)

which is very close to the 14 billion term for the age of the universe

COINCIDENCE ???
I think NOT
<

being-human

2008-06-12T16:44:00.000-07:00

I have long thought that our view of the "soul" is seriously flawed.
If there is a soul, then what is it ?
Many people say its the subconscious, and many people use this to say
that we are different from animals.
Actually, first, let me address this point, we are different from animalsin a couple of ways.
The most obvious to me, is that we are tool makers
(not just tool users, other animals use tools).
Next, we are the only animals that can visualize a different reality.
Now, i picked my words carefully here, because, well, any other way to say it can be mis-interpreted.

Visualizing a different reality
This can mean dreaming, but really, its unclear as to what animals dream,
and i think they do dream, my dog often appears to have nightmares!
I could also have said we are the only animals to "Mock Ourselves"
But, animals often do this as well.
Animals do not bury their dead, nor do they eat with spoons, so there are some that i could have included, but seem to be pointless, and are just part of a larger point.

Lets look at the 2 examples above.
Eating with spoons...
This is part of the mechanics of having 2 hands free (sine we walk upright) and also having an opposable thumb. But it also has to do with culture, and a societal structure.
Apes DO have societies, though they dont eat with spoons, listen to Chaupin, or drive cars,
they do have emotion, and society.
To me, there is no inherent difference here, only a matter of degree.
Burying the dead.
Now this one is a bit different. It means that we think there may be an afterlife.
There is actually the possibility that it came from habit of not wanting other animals to eat the carcass, then it just worked its way into culture from there. But even then, there is still the question of afterlife.
Or is there ?
We cant actually ask a dog if he thinks about afterlife, but if we could i would think that they do not.
The reason for this is that thier brains are not developed as ours.
Again, to me, this is just a matter of degree, no real inherent difference.

Now we know that there is a part of the brain that developed because man started walking upright, that would not have developed otherwise.
(i think the cortex?)
Anyway, walking upright gave us advantages of radiating heat (to cool us off)
The brain got bigger, and the center of the brain started being used.

Now, interestingly, the brain is the only part of the body that does not regenerate itself.
All other organs cells do.
This brings me back to my original point that we are not the
"SAME persons that we were many years ago.
Not only do we learn, and gather experience, and make more connections in the brains tissue, but our actual cells are not the ones we were born with.
SO , in looking at a SOUL, we have to ask is this really our subconscious ?
Do we have a SOUL when we are babies ?
How about when we are in prenatal development ?
When the cells are still dividing ? When it is just one cell ?

SO, even though there may be hierarchical differences between man and ape,
like Visualizing a different reality, i still believe that the only differences between man and ape are that of degrees

the colors of the flag

2008-03-21T05:45:00.000-07:00

With all the talk about Obama, his reverend and race,
i have to give my opinion as a white liberal from the South
(New Orleans)

While a lot of new commentators (OK if you actually call Bill O'Rielly NEWS?)...
While some of these people are not ouright racist, and are carefull what they say,
they have absolutely no IDEA of how big the problem, is, or even what it is.

Here in the big easy, i work with all kings of people on a regular basis,
and have had friends of all backgrounds.
I think that is a bit more common here than it is up north.

What REALLY gets my goat is that Barak Obama gave one of the most inspirational
and important speaches about race in our time,
and not only has it not been recognised as such, but it is being uncriticized
and most of the media has totally missed the point.

What the problem is, is that its OK to hear, but until it actually comes down to actually DOING something, people WONT.
It takes work, and tolerance,
It doesnt take that much, but you have to put one foot in front of the other
to actually take a step in the right direction.

As Obama said, blacks and whites both have some reasons to be angry,
and to have an honest discussion, we must realize this.

Whites think that blacks have too many babies and take advantage of social security,
are lazy, etc... etc...

Blacks think that whites own and run everything, and dont give them a chance
to move up. This includes schools, jobs etc...

It takes work and understanding to realize this and be sympathetic to the other side.

Looking at most of the news commentary, we see NONE of this understanding,
all we see is more division. Many are totally missing the point, and if we dont get it soon,
it will lead to the downfall of this country.

The world is getting much smaller.
With technology and communications, the borders between races are getting smaller,
we are coming closer whether we like it or not.
We HAVE to learn to work together, or we will be at eah others throats.

Such is the case with this administration.
THis admin adding to that, people like Bill Orielly, and other rioght wing commentators are driving a knive between the races and cultures.
The Christian right has all but called every arab an Islamic radical
Al-Qaeda sympathizer.

I think the media has totally overblown the "Obama reverend" story.

Gas to $10 a gallon ?

2008-03-13T09:41:00.000-07:00

Gas prices $10 ?

Every time I talk about this, I get the same response,
they (OPEC) would not do it.

But lets look closely at this...
If GAS increases to $10 a gallon, sure OPEC would not sell as much oil,
but they wont have to at that price.
What if they sell %40 of what they were ?
They are still making money overall.

With a reduction in output, there is less they have to...
produce, refine, and ship.
They are still making a huge profit.
They will still have oil to sell in the future.
(when ALL of the oil is used up, they stop making money)

With a reduction in output,
the can only use the wells that produce easy to get, cheap oil.
It then, is much more cost effective for them.

Think about it,
if you had 100 widgets, and you had already sold 60 of them,
and they were in high demand, how much would you raise the price ?

FACT: Saudi Arabia has a large % of world oil.

FACT: A new US President will be elected soon.

FACT: The new Pres will most likely do something to
make the US less dependent on foreign oil.

FACT: The Saudi's and other oil rich countries
are watching this unfold VERY closely.

If YOU were Saudi Arabia, would you WAIT until alternative energies
are being produced by your competitors before raising prices ?

Add to this that some oil producing countries like Venezuela and Russia dont like this USA much right now, and woulnt mind seeing world power shift a bit more to their liking.

China and India are both growing fast, especially their need for oil.

What would happen....
Well, right off the bat, about %15 of people in the USA
would be unemployed within a couple of months.
Prices for many goods and food would triple.
(although they would slowly move up over a year or 2)

Within 1 year, about %40 of people in the USA (that have jobs) would loose them.
Government spending would go up, we are using a huge amount of oil and gas
with the war in Iraq, not to mention the rest of the military here and overseas.

It would look very similar to the great depression.
Soup kitchens, no jobs, inflation, etc...
It may in fact be much worse.
With the current population we (the US Gov) couldnt feed that many people,
couldnt get to the suburbs, old people couldnt get medicine,
kids couldnt go to school...
There would be martial law.
The Gov would have to control all the fuel,
so that they had enough for police, military etc...
At some point, a large percent of the populous
would not be able to pay of electric and water services .
Only the rich would be living comfortable.
All HELL would break loose !

Is it possible ?
Instead, lets ask what is stopping them?
There is no real need to keep oil over $100 a barrel now,
but it is. Oil companies can do just fine if they sold it at $85, but they arent.

So is this a test ?
Are the oil companies raising prices just to see how far they can push ?
Even if this isnt the sole reason, believe me, they are looking at EXACTLY how much we
(especially the USA) are curbing our appetite now.

They KNOW that we have no other choice in the short term,
and it wold be many years before we can significantly lower our dependence on oil.
They would see it coming, and are watching that very closely.

We are walking a fine line
This scenario doesnt even have to be malicious.
All that has to happen is 1 or 2 large refineries in Saudi Arabia,
be it terror attacks, or just accidents.
A combination of a hurricane hitting a few wells /refineries in the USA,
and a couple of accidents at the same time in Saudi Arabia could light this fuse.

We NEED to get off oil NOW, we are much to late to do it "without pain".
If we act NOW, we can minimize the damage, but there needs to be a VERY aggressive solution,
and we are already too late to implement it without at least some

Now, we can look at TRENDS, but like i said, if you have 100 widgets,
and 60 of them are already gone, then you may want to re-think not just the price,
but the future of the company.

You may want to raise the price dramatically to get the absolute MOST
out of the 40 widgets you have left.

I know there lots of oil left, but its not ALL oil that we can look at,
its only the oil that can be gotten out of the ground at a reasonable expense.
Much of the reserves are hard to get to, and very costly.

Keep in mind that in the coming years, maybe by 2010
that it will be much more costly to extract oil.

Many projections show oil at $1000 a barrel by 2020
If you saw that coming with your widgets, wouldnt you start acting NOW?

China and India's needs for oil are increasing VERY fast,
and if the US uses less it will benefit them.

The dollar would be worth less which would benefit many countries besides the US

We have PISSED OFF all of the Arab nations which means they wouldn't mind seeing the US go down the tubes either.

============================

Oil consumption and production in China, 1990-2025 (thousand bd)

http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/documentos/226.asp

$1000 a barrel ?

===========

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/consumption.html

The results of the oil shocks was worldwide double-figure inflation and a stagnant economy.

The charts below show how the sudden increases in oil prices in the 70s and 80s were reflected by unemployment, inflation and growth in the UK.

C2. Oil Prices

C3. Unemployment (UK)

C4. Inflation (UK)

C5. Growth (UK)

The results of the oil rises to come will be worse since there will be no hope of the resumption of cheap oil.

Future Consumption

The problems of oil consumption in the future revolve around two factors: population and the increasing use from developing countries. A chart of the US Census Bureau’s world population shows that population is expected to increase steadily over the first half of the this century. (What it doesn’t show is any drop in population that might be caused by oil decline – from wars, recessions, famine, etc).

More people means more demands for fuel, energy, plastics and food – all highly dependent on oil. In the ten years from 2002 to 2012, the world population is expected to rise from 6.23 billion to 6.96 billion, an extra 12% to be fed, supplied and energised. Along with population, the other factor is the increasing use of oil in developing countries – countries which, up to now, had been contributing little to consumption. Compare these charts of oil consumption from selected countries and regions.

C6. Consumption (USA and South/Central America) **

C7. Consumption
(Europe/Eurasia and UK) **

The first two show the ‘developed’ countries/regions of USA, Europe, UK and South/Central America. Although the consumption is high (as far as the USA and Europe is concerned), the trend is either gentle or actually in reverse (note how the oil shocks of the 70s and 80s are reflected again). The percentage changes from 1965 to 2005 range from 20% for the UK, to 180% for South/Central America with Europe and USA sitting between (see Chart C10). This compares with overall world consumption which grew by 164%.

But when we look at the charts for Pacific Asia and China, we see a very different view. Chart C8 uses the same scale as Chart C6 and Chart C7, and you can see how the whole of Asia Pacific has already surpassed the levels of the USA and Europe and at a much steeper curve (a change since 1965 of 636%. China’s rise seems more gentle because of the scale: if you isolate China and bring the scale down to fit (Chart C9), the frightening rise in that country’s oil consumption is clear. The percentage change over the 40 years is a whopping 3118%.

C8. Consumption (Asia Pacific & China) **

C9. Consumption (China) **

Below (C10) is a chart of those percentage changes and it shows the dramatic difference between the developed and the developing world.

C10. Consumption (Change since 1965) **

C11. Population (China)

The clear omen from this is that oil consumption in Asia is going to increase dramatically in the next few decades and this will outweigh any decrease from Europe and the US. The population of China, even with birth control measures, is still expected to rise. This is the trend. In reality, consumption will slow and decline as oil production decreases and recessions bite, but the exact figures for that are impossible to calculate. What is clear is that, if the world continues as it presently is doing, oil consumption will continue to rise.

This is the worrying chart for oil consumption, a dramatic rise of over seven times (636%) in Asia over the four decades as populations grew and the countries demanded a standard of living closer to the West's. From a 1965 total of 1.19 Gb to 8.74 Gb, from 10.4% of the world's consumption to 29%. China's rise seemed gentler but it actually shows an increase of 3,118%, from 1.7% of the world to 8.5%. The rise is clearer in chart C9.

Source: BP

This chart summarises changes shown in charts C6 to C9. The huge increases in Asia and China over the last four decades are very clear.

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.html

If milk prices had increased at the same rate as U.S. natural gas prices, a gallon
of milk would cost $11 today.

http://www.checkgasprice.info/

Supply, Demand & Price: The Economics 101 of Peak Oil

the speed of the universe

2008-01-16T09:56:00.000-08:00

i just watched a show about dark matter and dark energy
i think dark matter is really gravity
We dont really know what medium gravity uses.
light uses photons that we once thought to be waves, then particles
then both.
I read that at least one guy thinks the universe isnt expanding,
but everything in it is just getting smaller
(no thats not a joke)
I think its entirely possible that the universe is not really expanding,
but that we just think it is, its an illusion.

Think about the speed of anything....
to determine speed, one needs a reference point.
But what if that reference is moving ?
Then the speed can ONLY be used in relation to the reference,
and NOT the rest of the universe.

Since the earth rotates around its axis,
and the earth revolves around the sun
and the sun revolves around the galaxy
and a galaxy cluster.... etc...etc...

So what if all these come together ?
is there an addition of speed ?

Lets say the earth rotates on its axis (clockwise)
near the equator that would be about 1000 mph
I have no idea on how fast the earth revolves around the sun,
or the sun around the galaxy etc...

but lets say we add all of these together....
lets say it comes to just under the speed of light
say, 500mph less
Then we launch a rocket off the earth at 600mph

Are we then really going faster than the speed of light ?

Also, heres my new search tool
Search NEWS Sports medicine Government politics law physics Weather
Brads Ultimate search tool

just stuff below...
---------------

dream i had about 2 stars Darium and Detarium

spurl.net/discover/user/911review/

furl.net/members/911review

furl.net/members/911review
batcave911.stumbleupon.com
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/911review

911review by 911review

batcave911 weblog

technorati.com/faves/911review
del.icio.us/911review.org
911review.stumbleupon.c…

This verifies that GOD does not exist

2008-01-04T14:26:00.000-08:00

This verifies that GOD does not exist
at hi5.com

This has become a big thread at HI5
it has a lot to do with evolution, the big bang, religion, and the beginning of life.

Here is the first post...

Everyone could say that god is infinitely love, if something is infinite there is impossible their opposite,We all know that hate is present in the world, So god could not be infinitely love because there is hate. Then god, like infinite "be", does not exists.\

//All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics//

actually, supposedly matter can not be created or destroyed.
BUT, it can.
In very small amounts, in a thermonuclear process
(like the sun, etc...) it can be destroyed.
Some physicists also believe that in the void of space matter can be created in very small quantities.

All this is really besides the point.
Just because we havent found the right formula yet doesnt mean that something isnt real.
Not so very long ago everyone thought the world was flat.

i never accepted the big bang, i have always been a proponent of the steady state theory.
Most physicists think im a crackpot, but some of them are starting to eat their words now.
Recently they found that they made some big mistakes on the "red shift" which is what they used to tell the distance (and age) of stars.

"also, the theory is the big bang came from a singularity, not from nothing.
The singularity is everything in an infinitely small area.
physics as we understand it did not apply."

Brad,
still rise the question who/what puts that everything in this small area?? and then have it exploded into a fantastically running universe, with planets and moons not crashing, exactly running in orbit etc. quite a lot of faith you have to muster up to belief that it just come and out from nowhere, nothing and nobody.

Posted by Seri

still rise the question who/what puts that everything in this small area?? and then have it exploded into a fantastically running universe, with planets and moons not crashing, exactly running in orbit etc. quite a lot of faith you have to muster up to belief that it just come and out from nowhere, nothing and nobody.
--------

why must someone/something have "put" everything in that area????

Its possible that there was no beginning or end.
That its a never ending loop with no creator.

just because we cant comprehend that concept,
doesnt mean that it has to be discounted.

This is the main flaw in the theory of "GOD".

and i will say ONE MORE TIME hoping that someone gets it this time....

JUST BECAUSE WE DONT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING
DOESNT MEAN IT CANT BE.

Posted by brad

God and All - Thoughts on humans, evolution, religion and more: Deregulating the Dream God and All

2007-11-16T18:29:00.000-08:00

God and All - Thoughts on humans, evolution, religion and more: Deregulating the Dream God and All

2007-11-16T18:26:00.000-08:00

God and All - Thoughts on humans, evolution, religion and more: Deregulating the Dream God and All

http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=115392

http://www.colboard.com/viewtopic.php?p=760409#760409

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/911review/2007/nov/16/deregulating_the_dream

http://911review.stumbleupon.com/review/14389991/

Deregulating the Dream

2007-11-16T17:45:00.000-08:00

Deregulating the Dream

By 911review | bio

America is close to being a 3rd world country when it comes to class and wealth.

My take:
Americans (mostly republican) constantly brag about how we are the BEST at everything, the problem is that we are not.
Its time we faced facts and started actually DOING something about it, instead of hiding our head in the sand not wanting to believe it.
If you talk to most republicans, they will DENY that our educational system isnt the BEST, instead of realizing it, and wanting to god something about it.
Fighting the truth gets us no-where.

Our educational system is comparatively marginal at best.

Our health care system hardly gives any help at all to low income people.

Our prison system is VERY overcrowded, and we have more people in jail per-capita than any other country on earth.

We spend 288,000,000 a DAY on the war in Iraq.
Army "deserters" are up over 80%

Our military is stretched to far in case we need them for a REAL threat,
OR, a natural disaster.

More Arabs and Muslims hate us than they did 5 years ago.

1 million Iraqis are dead.

We have lost many of our civil rights.

We are being spied on (probably right now)

We haven't invested (fast enough) on clean renewable energy.

Oil prices can bring this country to its KNEES,
and nothing is being done about it.

Global warming threatens our future, and not only are we EXTREMELY unprepared, but some people actually believe its not a threat.

We trot along in our daily lives with memories of "Leave it to Beaver",
thinking that our world will not change as long as we follow goos Christian morals and defend our country from the "terrerasts".
We don't realize that 1 of 100 things could put a damper on our dreams, like the Yellowstone caldera blowing and destroying 80% of our country.
Not only is our military not here, or prepared to help us, but we are not prepared for it physically, OR mentally.
What if we go to war with Iran, the biggest Saudi refinery blows up,
and send oil prices to 15$ or $20 a gallon ?

With $20 a gallon gas, the country WILL shut down as we know it.
Food prices would soar, companies would shut down, people couldnt leave their homes, the Gov would have food lines, there would be martial law, and all chaos would break out.

We are already in a class warfare, and only 1 side is waging the war.
Most of us are totally complacent thinking that as long as our daily lives are not too disrupted, like loosing cable TV, or our cell phone, that our Government is taking care of us.

But what if its not ?
If some major change happens, and its very possible, it could throw this class "warfare" in a spin, leaving only the top 1% of the country able to live comfortably.

I read a report the other day saying the 1/2 of all the BEES in the U.S. have died.
If not stopped, this could leave no fruits or vegetables in our grocery stores, and could have much farther reaching implications.

This is one small example, but MANY things could happen.
Our society is very fragile, and we need to realize this and prepare for it.
Spending 288 million dollars a day on an illegal war isn't helping much.

Its time we stop bragging about how good we are,
and start ACTUALLY DOING something about it.

Hopefully a DEM will do that.

Brad

tpmcafe.com

7:13pmEdit•Delete 1 review Edit•Delete

nowpublic.com

batcave911

911review

Of God and All

=============

Deregulating the Dream

No natural disaster has hit the American middle class, scholars and activists who gathered in North Carolina last week agree, just a series of political decisions that have privileged the powerful.

November 12 , 2007

Just 1 percent of Americans currently hold about half the financial wealth of the entire United States.

Meanwhile, notes Washington University sociologist Mark Rank, the nation’s bottom 60 percent hold less than 1 percent of that wealth, and 75 percent of Americans, sometime in their adult lives, can now expect to “experience a year either in poverty or near poverty.”

How much more unequal can the United States become? Plenty

If the United States keeps to its present course, Rank predicted last week at an insight-rich national conference on inequality in North Carolina, the nation could “begin to reflect the bifurcation patterns more typical of third-world countries,” with the privileged opting to “physically separate themselves from the middle and bottom.”

That separation, Rank added, has already begun — via everything from gated communities to growing private school enrollments.

The good news? Inequality amounts to an unnatural disaster. Conscious political decisions have helped make the United States deeply unequal. Conscious political decisions can, by the same token, help undo that inequality.

That theme sounded repeatedly last week on the University of North Carolina campus as Mark Rank and dozens of other academics, activists, and policy makers converged for two days of discussion and debate on “Wealth Inequality and the Eroding Middle Class.”

The conference — hosted by the university law school’s Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity — didn’t make many headlines. The conference had perhaps a more important role: helping Americans make sense of the headlines we already see.

Headlines, for instance, on the subprime mortgage market collapse. The subprime market, University of Connecticut law professor Patricia McCoy explained last week, didn’t even exist a quarter-century ago.

But in 1980 “waves of federal deregulation” began reshaping the banking industry, stripping away meaningful limits on mortgage terms and rates. Lenders soon became able, for the first time, to “segment the mortgage market between stronger and weaker borrowers” — and manipulate the weaker into paying through the nose.

By 2006, American families were carrying adjustable rate mortgages with interest rates that could double at the first reset. And if these families went to refinance those mortgages, they faced prepayment penalties that could hit as high as $9,000 on a $150,000 loan.

All this deregulation would prove spectacularly lucrative for the nation’s biggest lenders — Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo, for instance, pocketed $295.7 million over a five-year span — and spectacularly devastating for struggling families.

“By year-end 2008,” notes the University of Connecticut’s McCoy, “over 2 million subprime loans are expected to go into foreclosure.”

The inequality that deregulation has nurtured could, in theory, be offset by tax policies that target extremely high incomes. But current tax policies, University of Oklahoma law professor Jon Forman pointed out last week, are doing precious little to redistribute excess.

We now have, Forman noted, “hardly any taxes on wealth and investment income.” Taking just one small step to change this situation — by eliminating the current tax break for capital gains and dividends — “could raise about $130 billion a year.”

Lawmakers could take all sorts of other steps, conference presenters made clear, to broaden the distribution of America’s wealth. You can check them out outline, where the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity is this week posting conference highlights.

— Sam Pizzigati

Is The Universe Really Expanding?... Usenet Threads

2007-11-10T15:02:00.000-08:00

ive recently become a fan of this guy...

http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

http://ar.sdrodrian.com/
Gravity As Thermodynamics:
The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian

The IMPLODING universe !

http://physics.sdrodrian.com/what_is_gravity.html

http://ar.sdrodrian.com/ar-10.htm

Gyudon Z either lives in Japan or he just couldn't sleep at all
last night (damn, he posts at nearly 3 AM), so he walked around
and, finally, apparently made it to my front door... where he knocked
(very slowly, like sleepwalkers & other insomniacs are wont to do)...
And then he stood there staring past me with huge, blood-shot eyes
mumbling something (while I was trying to remember where the Hell
I last saw my baseball bat)... so I but think this is what he said:

>>The ONE thing you have to realize
>>is that the modern cosmological constant
>>does NOT come from the discovery of its source:
>>
>>Scientists did not discover the "crazy matter"
>>that produces anti-gravity. The recent discovery
>>that the Big Bang theories are physically impossible
>>(prohibited by the laws of physics)
>
> One would think the Big Bang theory would be less popular
> if it was impossible.

Are you familiar with any form of religion?

> The Clue Meter is reading zero.

You probably need to go to bed now (I wouldn't
necessarily drink more coffee, if I were you).

>>have sent those
>>theoreticians (who still refuse to accept the fact
>>that the ONLY force at work in the universe is GRAVITY)
>
> How is the interaction between charged particles
> the force of gravity?

It is not--Unless you're asking what gravity is: A
force, and I can only describe a force in Newtonian terms
(except to categorically state it is the purest form
of energy we can think of)... know energy is not material
at the level of charged particles of any kind: There is
a potential of energy in charged particles just as there
is a potential of energy in a coiled spring and they can
both be released, but it's useless to speak of either
form of energy as material themselves (this is why it is
possible to speak of gravity/energy/force as truly something
fundamental... because it cannot be further "simplified"):
In the same manner... gravity IS energy AND it is constantly
"at work" (which requires us to believe that gravity "uses
up" energy, or itself--Where then does gravity get its energy
if not from E=MC2?). And if gravity holds the universe together
(the strong force, et al is/are just very localized forms
of gravity)... gravity is siphoning energy/mass from "matter"
... what then must we assume is happening to that matter which
is constantly being shrunk by the subtraction of its mass?

> Or the
> nuclear forces?

All nuclear reactions are the result of the universe's
children (the youngest particles) playing in the yard.

>>scurrying to rationalize a view of the universe
>>which goes against the laws of physics (e.g. how can
>>in an universe in the grips of the force of gravity
>>galaxies be flying away from each other?).
>
> You sound like Ed Conrad again.

I gotta hear this Ed talking! He must be
the owner of a quite mellifluous voice!

> The universe is expanding using momentum alone.

Ah! It was pushed by the Big Bang explosion!
Unfortunately for your notion... the expansion of
the universe is accelerating. And ONLY a continuously
applied force causes acceleration (momentum going
against a force causes anti-acceleration... and
the last time I checked, the universe was in the grips
of the force of gravity). Think! You're talking
physical impossibility here: The notion that the
universe is expanding goes against the laws of physics.

> You remember momentum from physics class, don't you?

Boy do I remember her! Every guy in our class had to
go out with her at least once!

> You did take it, I trust.

I stole it, but it's practically the same deal.

>>Because
>>they do not know (or cannot accept) that all the forms
>>of matter are just that--forms--and believe there ARE
>>fundamental forms of matter... it is hard for them to
>>understand how an imploding universe could escape
>>turning into a great big black hole filled with
>>galaxies flying towards each other.
>
> You have not proven to anyone's satisfaction except yours
> that the universe is
> contracting.

Actually I'm just mentioning that I've discovered
the universe is imploding. Is it a worthwhile mention?
It's a bother, really--What practical benefits can such
a discovery bring for the discoverer? Does such a discovery
validate my own personal existence? Could I really dare
to believe that... had I not lived, humanity would never
have discovered the universe is imploding? Hardly: The
hints are far too obvious! It is true that for thousands
of years people thought the universe orbited the earth
but we finally discovered the truth... and we would have
discovered the truth even if we'd had to wait thousands
of years more. Humanity can wait. Individuals can not:
And so I mention that the universe is imploding, in passing;
and then I will try to get back to my music and my other
sundry hobbies. What I have done is the equivalent of
mentioning the rain falls from the clouds in the sky:
It's totally unimportant to most human beings. But you
are a new-born child, as it were... you've never before
heard that the rain falls from the clouds. You exclaim:
"Ah-uh! No it doesn't!" And so I take you outdoors on a
rainy day and show you it's all true. [All my proofs are
explained with all the simplicity one uses with children.]
Once you see the thing for yourself you will marvel at
the wonders of the universe. And then you will go to other
things... skipping rope, perhaps. And I will remain as if
standing there, in the end, having accomplished not much
in this word by having pointed out to you the obvious:
Do you remember who it was first told you the rain falls
from the clouds in the sky? No you do not (although somebody
did just that). And when everybody knows the universe is
imploding... I'll be left as if standing there too, while
people who recognize me whisper: "Look, that's the guy
discovered the rain falls from the clouds in the sky!"
And the echo that will reply to that will be: "Yeah! So?"

>>Sorry, my man: Einstein knew what he was talking about
>>when he called it his greatest blunder BECAUSE he knew
>>that (like the modern theoreticians who are now grasping
>>at straws by reviving it), he knew that IT SATISFIED NO
>>REAL PROBLEM... Einstein's Cosmological Constant is not
>>a scientific development but comes only from Einstein
>>having thrown his heads in the air and said, "Well, if
>>the universe is static there must be something neither I
>>nor anybody else knows about which must be forcing it to
>>remain static... and let's call that whatever-it-is The
>>Cosmological Constant!"
>
> The universe is not static.

Well, you're too late if you're thinking of emailing
Einstein: Hubble beat you to it.

>> That IS your cosmological constant:
>>"Some'n out there." (Although I have no doubt that the
>>same math guys who brought us the 67 dimensions will soon
>>get to work on 67 reasons behind the Cosmological Constant:
>>It's the Eternal Constant of Human Nature.) BUT:
>>
>>Once you understand what really IS causing the acceleration
>>of the Hubble Constant, you won't need to resort to any such
>>moronic rationalizations as "inflation theory" and the CC.
>
> You haven't really explained the "acceleration"
> of the Hubble constant. Is it
> really changing by units of m/s^2? Because that's
> not just a number shift; it's
> a unit shift.

Try to understand it this way: The universe is NOT
really expanding (I prefer the term exploding), it
is imploding. The Hubble Constant refers specifically
to the recession of the galaxies from each other (which
IS occurring): Therefore to say the expansion of the universe
is accelerating... is misleading and confusing. It is
closer to the truth that the Hubble Constant is what
is, properly, what is increasing. Sorry if I misled you.

>>Sorry, pumpkin, but... apples & oranges: The "apparent"
>>older galaxies (older then the universe) stem from
>>your not having taken into consideration distances/time:
>
> You sound like a creationist in reverse.

Is this the one that cries out: "Satan is King!" Or
the one says, "Elvis is King!" (I haven't scratched out
the record myself.)

>>I am convinced that the universe is vastly older than
>>conventionally thought, but you still have to take into
>>consideration that the "given" age of the universe stems
>>from observations
>
> And what empirical evidence other than empirical
> observations can you bring to
> bear against them?

Let's leave it at the level of a condemnation:
The age (and thereby the size) of the universe
is a factor from a number of assumptions, not least
of which is the running backwards of the cosmic film
all the way to the Big Bang: And if there was never
any Big Bang, all assumptions from it are incorrect.
The same can also be said of calculations made from
naked (albeit informed) guesses about the nature of
distant galaxies/quasars used to gauge/guess distances:
If the assumptions are correct, the results are too.
But we mustn't forget they are, at the bottom of it,
assumptions... however well informed.

>>(and things we have not yet seen, but
>>which may prove the universe much older, do not come
>>into it).
>
> Argument based on something that does not exist
> (as far as we know) is
> logically fallacious.

The distinction between a guess based on circumstantial
evidence, and a guess based upon evidence which cannot
be absolutely and unanimously agreed to be beyond doubt
is... minimal: We all base our reasoning upon every
sort of weird superstition and prejudice to some extent
(which is why I have striven to categorically state
the observations upon which I base my conclusions; and
those notions for which I cannot personally find indisputably
valid evidence--which satisfies me, at least--I have but
mentioned as speculation on my part: you can read, I assume,
read in my quoted statements when I am saying I know
something to be the case, and when I just have an opinion
it may be the case?

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

The Big Questions: What is consciousness?

2007-11-10T10:52:00.000-08:00

The philosopher Derek Parfit put it starkly: we are not what we believe ourselves to be.

Actions and experiences are interconnected but ownerless.
A human life consists of a long series - or bundle - of enmeshed mental states rolling like tumbleweed down the days and years, but with no one (no thing) at the centre.

An embodied brain acts, thinks, has certain experiences, and that's all. There is no deeper fact about being a person. The enchanted loom of the brain does not require a weaver.
http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19225780.073&feedId=being-human_rss20

Ive been saying this for years.

We are different people every day.

Brain cells die, and electrical pathways change.
So, the idea that theres a SOUL is nonsense.

I think for our species to survive, we need to throw away these notions of religion
and the soul. If not, it will be our downfall.

We are animals, like other animals on this planet.
We have DNA, tissue, and bone.

At this pointy i have to look at the hypocrisies of the human spirit.
We look at things like "conspiracies" and think how outrageous they are.
We look at things like Aliens and UFO's, and think that one must be crazy to believe in them.
Not to mention one religion looking at another and thinking they are outrageous.

So what is so strong in the human spirit to make us not want to believe whats before our eyes ?
What makes us look at reality and want to see something else ?

I think it has to do with not wanting to take responsibility.
For what you ask ?
For the future of mankind my friend !

Is the human race to survive ?
Well, thats not up to us is it ?
Well, YES, it is.
Many other creatures have perished on this planet, many that have tried to adapt to changes, but at some point , for some reason still didnt make it.

Its very possible that we wont make it either, even IF we learn to live together without killing each other. A meteor could hit us tomorrow wiping the human race off the map.
Its possible too, that before that happens, we could learn to leap into space and develop colonies on other planets.
Just like any other species, its in our nature to survive and procreate...

Brad

god and all

The Big Questions: What comes after Homo sapiens?

2007-11-10T10:10:00.000-08:00

New Scientist tackles eight of the deepest challenges faced by science - from reality and consciousness, to free will and death, in The Big Questions special features.

IN 1957, biologist Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous, coined the term "transhumanism" for the idea that we should use technology to transcend the limitations of our bodies and brains. Huxley believed that "the human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself" through "evolutionary humanism".

Almost half a century on, transhumanism has become a real possibility, pointing the way to an unbelievably transcendent future that would have been unimaginable even to Huxley. The choices we make today are deciding an answer to the question "What comes after human civilisation?"

In the pre-Enlightenment world view, human beings were the pinnacle of creation, made in God's image to dwell on an Earth that was the centre of the universe. Enlightenment thinking - particularly science

About this blog

2007-11-10T09:46:00.000-08:00

I am creating this to share my ideas about man, our civilization,
evolution, and our place in this world.

Ill start it off with these 2 questions...

WHAT is our subconscious ?

What does that word really mean ?
Since i was raised more of a scientist than a mystic, or religious type, i am inclined to believe that all of our brain activity is from electrical impulses.
But what exactly spurs all these thoughts ?

I think that there is a universal "thread" that binds us all together
I think our consciousness taps into this, especially when we are asleep.

I also think that this has a LOT to do with our ancestors
You know the theory that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil, it rains in Africa or something...

I think that every thought we have somehow effects everyone on the planet, even if in a very small way.
If i go to work and have a bad day, and come home and yell at my kids, all of this has lasting effects, even to the guy on the freeway that i ticked off.

So everything we do, every thought we have becomes part of the record of humanity.
It is there forever, it can never be changed or erased.

The effects of everything our ancestors said and thought are felt today.

Whether or not any of this is embedded in DNA i dont know, but i think it is with all of us
Animals have instincts that tell them what they can eat etc...
I think this is very closely related.

comments ???
============

How are we different from animals ?

What makes us different ?
Ive heard lots of explanations, none of which i agree with, id like to know everyones view.

I personally think that we ARE an animal, actually, we share over 96% of our DNA with chimps.
HUMANS are a species just like any other animal

We know we have larger brains, and are pretty sure that came about from our ancestors standing upright, the head got larger to expel heat from our bodies better.

The combination of having a larger brain, plus, having 2 free hands to be able to manipulate our environment has led us to be able to create this society.
but thats about all...

Keywords
human, evolution, animals, god, religion