Leaderboard

See what happens with what? also I was under the impression that the supervoid is not growing. Or am I wrong concodering the supervoid is 3 billion light years away I hope not in our lifetimes

John Prine is in heaven now, due to corona. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKPDFQRmG_M Life changed in many ways during the past four weeks. This however is one news that gives me most sadness.

The nearest I can think of is A for Andromeda, by Fred Hoyle. But it was a TV series not a book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_for_Andromeda You might find this a useful resource: http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com

We have had many 'scientific' discussions in our Religion Forum. One that I found particularly interesting was concerning whether Jesus was a real person, or a fictional character. We can also discuss the psychology/ morals of believers and non-believers, or even other Religions. So I don't have a problem with 'scientific' discussions concerning Religion. But 'belief' itself is not amenable to scientific discussion.

In 4 years?

Prolonging life doesn't equal overcoming death. I don't think anybody in science is teaching that death might be avoided. Perhaps if we look at life as more efficient than non-life in terms of using energy from the sun? Then death can be seen as a recycling of the mechanisms that make future life possible. Or considering that all the bits that actually create a new life are alive themselves, perhaps evolution shows us that life is a continuous process that death is part of.

I disagree with this. To me knowing death is unavoidable helps me put things in perspective, what's important and what's not. It makes me curious about life, makes me ask questions. It's a motivator to do something with your life, to not waste it. Knowing the people you love will one day not be there brings you closer together I think. As I get older the thought of my mother dying is quite humbling to me, it stops me from taking her for granted.

Also a way of controlling people. “Follow the rules now and things will be better when you die”

People have got 4 years from one election to the next to get an ID. If they can't do it in that time space I would assume they aren't really bothered.

A birth certificate as a photo ID doesn’t seem feasible

The afterlife strikes me as a story manufactured to ease the anxiety so often caused by not knowing what (if anything) happens when we die, also to soften the pain of survivors.

For those interested, I now read the whole article "Is everything determined?" of Stephen Hawking. I find it funny that already in the third sentence, the ambiguity of Hawking's position becomes clear. It is one of the leading questions of the article: Bold by me. I would have formulated: Is everything we do determined or preordained? Reason is that they are different things: Being determined is not the same as being preordained. I would answer 'yes' to the first question (at least when no quantum effects are considered, which in the question of free will seems a good approximation), but 'no' to second. What we do matters, also in a determined world, i.e. we have influence on what happens. Hawking seems to be aware of this difference, but just does not dive deep enough in the difference. Reason is what he takes as outstanding attribute of free will: Both determinism and predestination in principle offer the possibility that we can predict human behaviour. But is unpredictability really an attribute of free will? I think it isn't at all; and Hawking thinks it isn't practically. Two reasons: Hawking's end conclusion: The other one is that if one would be able to predict what I will do based on laws of nature and present conditions, and then tells me his prediction, I can change my behaviour based on this prediction. The way out for the determinist is of course: keep the prediction secret. Put it in an envelope and bring it to a notary. Then after the prediction was fulfilled, show the prediction to everybody. But if he predicted something I did out of my free choice, should that bother me at all? The question if I was forced to do something by somebody, or did it because I liked to do it is not changed by the fact that the prediction was correct. So even under perfect prediction, I can still make the distinction if my action was free or not. At a more daily level: people who know me very well, will often be able to correctly predict what I will do in a certain situation. But really, I have not the feeling that this possibility somehow is an argument against free will. It just show I am a person with certain character traits. Would be funny if I do not act according to them, wouldn't it? But then, I found this statement of honesty of Hawking: I assume that he was often asked his opinion, as a world famous physicist, about the free will 'problem'. So he decided to write down what his way of thinking is. He does not claim to deliver a solution to it. What is left is an interesting, thought provoking, and well written essay about how he himself sees the solution of the seeming contradiction between determinism and free will.

More comma problems? Should that have been: "No god is real" and "Only, his problems remain are in our imagination"

It is the differences in how we perceive time and how science describes it (and the fact that different parts of physics treat it in different ways). As the article says: I expected not to like the ideas presented in the article but, in fact, I found it a fascinating idea.

With this comment I agree with. At the OP. Cosmology does take a learning curve. This forum will offer direction regardless of how foolish the question. Provided your goal is to learn rather than assert. The work naturally will depend on your dedication. Glad to see you haven't asserted anything in this thread thus far. Let's me know how you make out in each link I provided. (Lol it is a substantial amount of detail to properly grasp)

IQ tests were originally devised for people with compromised cognitive ability, for whatever reason, to assess what they could do and not do, to assess their future needs. They were not intended to assess the able-minded person. At best, they test for particular cognitive skill sets and really only tell you how good a person is at doing the specific tests. Being 'clever' depends on the task at hand and one can only be labelled such for that specific range of tasks. Nobody, I can think of, is clever at everything.

Now this particular study suggests coal rather than oil which could also be the case since they burn similarly. Burning oil produces less carbon dioxide than coal but burning enough of either (or both) for hundreds or thousands of years would certainly explain the decrease in life and how it was kept at such low levels. Firstly a complaint. Not your fault exactly but the link you gave want me to join their club or somesuch so I cannot view it. However you had the foresight to post a short extract +1 Now let us look at the geological basis of the idea. The Carboniferous period, when the coal was laid down, immediately preceded the Permian. Say 370 to 280 mya and lasted about 90 million years. The Permian itself then lasted a shorter period of roughly half that duration, from 280 to 235 mya This was followed by the Triassic ( the first of the Mesozoic periods; the Mesozoic lasted until the dinosaurs) The actual mass extinction you refer to took place over a very short period of time at the Permian-Triassic boundary. It is known as the P-T boundary event. Now the Carboniferous was a relatively settled period unlike the following Permain, when the massive Siberian lava flows occurred. So the Carboniferous conditions were right for the steady laying down of the sedimentary coal measures etc. And it is true that the Permian saw some spectacular vulcanicity. The Mesozoic era also accounts for about 70% of the world oil formation. So question 1. Why in 45 million years did the Permian not burn up all the coal , if this was a feasible option? Question 2 Why did life flourish during the Permian and why did the mass extinction wait until the P-T boundary to happen ? Question 3 How did the oild which was largely formed after the P-T event cause the P-T event?

No disrespect intended but you are missing out on the opportunity to learn something from Eise. You are in over your head and don't recognize it. This is similar to arguing with a doctor who wants to adjust a patient's oxygen level, when to you it is obvious that the patient's blue lips indicate their lips are broken.

For those of us ( like me ) who are not up to speed on Virology, this thread, from another forum I frequent, seems t be a good beginner tutorial... https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1443947 Perhaps CharonY can have a look at it, and answer any questions we noobs might have. ( or make any corrections as needed )

No, diseases, calamities and catastrofes ever existed in the planet even before the existence of humans.

The Creator of the Universe. If none of your known "Creator of the Universe God" convince you, I think you could try to develop your own concept for that God.

Oh you Frenchies… Don't get me wrong, I love the language. As the Merovingian says, in Matrix Reloaded, "Its like wiping your a*s with silk." But you have one revolution, in the very late 1700s,where you kill a large part of your people, oppressors and revolutionaries, and you think you're the most secular nation in the world. Yet you had troops in Italy, protecting the Papal lands of the Vatican ( a large part of central Italy ), and preventing Italian unification until the Germans kicked your a*s in the Franco-Prussian war 0f 1870. Now you want to claim the US isn't secular because of what they print on their money ? I could understand if you had said religious groups, like Southern Baptists, form the base of some high ranking politicians, like D Trump, the President. But that is how democracy works. Even the Religious have a voice. And that's a good thing; less oppression that way.

Good grief - as ill informed on science and policy as many of you are - you sure are experts re. your bias.

Ok. So you just want to argue semantics. Philosophy is completely lost on you. It’s like listening to a TED talk. You’d be an incredible subject for a case study on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Why? Does it bother you when I talk that way? Because I’m just exercising my “free will”. As you’d be exercising your “freedom of choice” by blocking me from the group if you wanted. That’s the best way I can think to show what I believe is evidence or at least an argument for “freedom of choice/will”. Please forgive me for any facetious remarks in my prior comments I merely needed a reaction to get my point across.

Have you sat-in on an automaker's meetings and heard that discussion in a board room...or is that a guess?

The cost of the lithium polymer jumper was $79.7...not much different than a new lead-acid battery. Recycling lead batteries is not not normally a factor in auto manufacturing (secondary smelters are the ones who deal with that), so why would an auto manufacturer care? There seem to be a whole lot of guesses being offered here despite my admonition not to do so. PLEASE! If you are not involved with management in the auto industry, please do not give unsupported (no data to back opinion), guesses...I can get those in bars.

I don't want to.