Intoscience

As already been said the size of a star is determined by its mass and its age. There are a few considerations to think about when we talk about "size", there is the minimum mass it takes to form a star in the first instance, then there is the total amount of mass distribution available along with other factors that determine the eventual mass and then there are the cycles a star goes through during its life. So the mass changes and also the diameter changes during a star's life span. For example, in the next 4-5 billion years its estimated that our own sun will grow in diameter, possibly expanding so far it comes close to, maybe reaching the Earth's orbit. Here is a link to the life of a star - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

I agree with you. I think rather than condemning a person for committing suicide, maybe we should look at each individual case and assess the reasons why. In modern western society there seems to be a growing trend of younger people taking their own lives (I think it was MigL who touched on this) Why is this so? Is it peer pressure, social media, the pressure of modern living? Rather than concerning over whether its morally wrong to commit suicide, maybe we should concern ourselves more with the reasons anyone does it in the first place and what we as a society should try and do about it. There is a big difference between a person terminally ill and suffering with incurable pain and a teenager who feels their life is worthless. For one its most likely kinder to let go, for the other all attempts should be made to save them.

Again, the difficulty being how do you calculate one's misfortunes? How do you compare them? What may seem like a rather small misfortune to one could well be a great misfortune to another. Yes, people make mistakes, especially when there is no one right answer.

I agree, though I feel that it all depends on the circumstances. I often say to my partner, people should be free to do what they want, provided it causes no harm to others, directly or indirectly.

I had a similar experience at a similar age, though it was a strange smell rather than a sound. When I was around 7 my youngest sister was born. A couple of years later my parents decided that we would swap around bedrooms so that my 2 sisters could share the larger bedroom leaving me with my own smaller room. Shortly after I had moved in I started to experience a rather unpleasant but faint fishy smell. I noticed that the smell would only be there at certain times, mostly from early evenings and then through the night, often, but not always, disappearing by morning. We searched high and low to find the source of the smell, deep cleaned the room top to bottom, added air fresheners etc.. but to no avail. Me and my sisters decided that it must be a ghost and named it "Mr Fishy". Oddly I was never frightened by it even though I was convinced it must be paranormal. 15 years later I decided to do a full re-vamp of the room. On swapping out the electrical accessories I found a single socket outlet that was thermally damaged, looking at it close up I could distinctly, though faint, smell "Mr Fishy". Turns out that the fishy smell was indeed the socket outlet that when used for my bedside lamp and tv would get warm and material it was made from would give off the fishy smell. I have had a number of experiences that some would consider to be psychic, but to be clear I don't believe in such. For some unknown (to me) I have had a number of premonitions of people's deaths which sounds all rather grim but its true. I have had 5 very clear and distinct experiences where I have "felt" (for want of a better word) the imminent death of a person. 3 of the 5 were people close to me and the other 2 people I had met but only had very brief encounters with. Sadly all 5 deaths came as a surprise to everyone, either caused by accidents or previously undetected ill health. I would have the "feeling" 2-3 days prior, it would just come over me with no apparent trigger or reason, I would not necessarily have been thinking about them or had any encounters with them recently beforehand. The only way I can describe the feeling is that it was this overwhelming wave of sadness for the person that would then make me think of their death. To give you an idea, there was one chap who I had met only once who was the father of a friend I competed against in my chosen sport. For some unknown reason, just out of the blue, I had the "feeling". A few days later I was told the sad news that he had suffered a massive heart attack at the wheel of his car and had died on the scene. This accident occurred 2 days after I had the "feeling" and thoughts of such. Now I don't believe in the paranormal of any kind, and I don't claim to have any special abilities!!!! I believe that these premonitions can be explained by science. A couple of possible theories I have is that time is not as linear as we imagine. Another is that maybe there are multiverses existing simultaneously that though not directly physically connected have some field connections of some sort be it EM or similar. Another is that I just coincidently for no apparent or special reason just happened to think about it.

So in the whole of this thread, you are basically saying that a god with no limitations actually has limitations because he/she/it is limited to it's very own existence. Well , yeah from our own logical perspective. Yep I like your post, +1 However, it then got me thinking, are we just by including physical capability as a measure of intelligence? The gold fish might "know" exactly how to climb the tree but is limited to do so by its physicality. Does this make it less intelligent than the monkey? I do understand the premise of the picture analogy and the point you were making, I was just considering it that's all.🙂

No problem, I enjoy a bit of sarcasm, I suppose you find on these types of forums the "joke" can sometimes be lost in interpretation. I guess (and it is a guess) judging from the recent comments, being in my early 50's I'm probably in amongst the youngest in this discussion. As you can see from my avatar I'm still able to do some pretty tough off road motorcycling, though now in the vets class, and constantly suffering from joint pain these days! My children consider me an old man! I won't comment on my looks or intelligence on any particular level other than I consider myself - all round average. Getting back to the OP I share the same sentiment as MigL ^^^^^^^ +1

+1 Though I have found the "debate" interesting, I considered getting involved, but then thought better of it since I side mostly with MSC on this particular subject. Maybe its just poor interpretation on our part, so apologies for that! No offense to our American friends but, it does often come across as - we know better and everyone else in the world should follow suit.

I wasn't arrogant or claiming to know your intent. I said "appeared", anyhow case closed as MigL stated, so apologies for my misunderstanding. It's still not clear to people where I live and the use of the term coloured is still used regularly, and by people who are not intentionally racist or mean any offense. The change to it now being offensive appears to be an American import, like many other imported trends it will take time to filter through and become the "norm" I guess. That's an interesting point of view, we acquire many American imports, especially trends that, as I mentioned to iNow can take a while to filter through. This can be (and has been proven in this thread alone) consequential especially with PC and what is often assumed globally accepted or not.

+1 Well as a bystander, I interpreted it the same as MSC, so creative or not it appeared to be a dig. I think in this instance "pre-announcement" just means he announced his selection would be limited to a certain gender and a certain skin colour. So he effectively "pre" selected prior to selection. Though I agree with you, I think its not fair (my bold) to tar every person with the same brush. Some people maybe, or may seem, ignorant due to their age, education, country of origin, or culture... It can certainly take a while for these things to filter through.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Me too, Though some electricians will squirm at the use of the word "bulbs". I over heard an electrician telling off his apprentice for saying bulbs. He corrected him with "you plant bulbs in a garden! they are lamps not bulbs"

Ok Thanks, I think that he stated the next person will be... and it was based on colour and gender which might infer the choice was already made to appease people. This intent could be viewed as demeaning because it could be interpreted as the person was only chosen because of colour and gender rather than qualification required for the job. KJB maybe more than qualified and an excellent choice based on her capability and qualification, this should be first & foremost. The pre-announcement potentially invalidated the selection criteria process by appearing to put colour and gender first and foremost, which is exactly the thing modern society is trying to eradicate. So based on this I can see how it could be negatively viewed. I'm also confused by what you mean? My objection (if you want to call it that) is that intentionally or not, the pre-announcement that the next person will be a person of a certain gender and a certain colour goes against the very thing that modern society is trying to eliminate. Selection based on a person's colour, race, gender, religion, sexual identity... In my opinion, I just don't think the pre-announcement was necessary, or rather if so, it could have been delivered better.

I think this is the key point for most PC issues and also to the question over Biden's pre-announcement. It seems intent often gets either lost in translation, ignored or worse, twisted out of context. I have friends family etc... who I often insult out of fondness similar to your best mates. This if heard by others may seem very offensive especially if there is any cross cultural differences. The term "love" and "sweetie" which you previously mentioned are ones I'm familiar with but are much less often used these days. It tends to be the "older" generations that continue with it while the younger generations do now tend to view such terms as offensive and demeaning. Going back to the OP, my query over the pre-announcement was, what was Biden's intent? (the intention behind the announcement, not the actual selection) If what I suspect (I could be completely wrong) was his intent then yeah I feel it could be demeaning to female black ladies, and possibly black people and females in general. What trumps this though is the actual final selection, so well done to Biden for this. Yeah it always spice things up some! Absolutely, If only everyone shared the same outlook maybe the world would be a better place. But here we are fussing and arguing over petty nonsense that will make no difference at all, except maybe raise one or two blood pressure levels.

No one is arguing his choice, in fact we all applaud it. We are questioning the merits of the pre announcement, whether it was it was a good idea or not. Personally I don't see why it was necessary and as a result see how it could be perceived negatively. Whether or not it makes a difference, I don't know the answer to, and to be fair it makes no odds to me so I won't be losing any sleep over it. I just find it interesting reading other perspectives and then discussing and trying to understand why they differ from mine. Its all educational after all. 😉

Firstly, thank you for your approach to this discussion. Though we are in some disagreement I think overall we share similar views. I would just like to comment on the part in bold. Yes, the good done far outweighs the clumsy process, this I agree on. However, (and its no big deal to me by the way) the way it was handled insinuated using racism for political gain, whether this was true or not, the perception could be that the pre announcement was to gain popularity with a previously oppressed group at the expense of all things being equal. This then could cast a doubt over the choice and singles the person out, for good or bad due to their skin colour and gender, rather than their actual qualities and abilities they may bring to the job. You are then potentially faced with "KBJ was only chosen cause she's a black female" instead of "KBJ was chosen because there was no other person more qualified and so previously the position has been dominated by white males this was a fair opportunity for a female black lady to take the position, as a step forward towards equality".

I can see your point and understand the premise. But I think there are ways to go about it that would sit more comfortably with the majority. Singling out whether it be positively or negatively can have repercussions, especially if there is a larger agenda or the motives are unclear. So in your example I would question whether the additional pay was because you actually realised that I deserved the bonus or whether you did it because you wanted to look good and be seeing to be doing the right thing? Of course giving me the bonus is the right thing to do (assuming my efforts warrant it) if I was mistreated or discriminated against in the past. However, the way that this is dealt with needs consideration. Pre-announcing to the everyone else that I would be getting a bonus and no one else will be, may not be the most tactful way. This singling out may make things uncomfortable for both me and my work colleagues and may put a question mark over your management skills, and motives. A much better way maybe would have been to keep it low key, then pay the bonus, and then explain to me and possibly my colleagues in detail why this had been done. There would still be some unhappy people who felt it unjust, but for the majority based on your actions, your motive would have been clear - you genuinely wanted to set things right for the person who had been previously discriminated against, rather than trying to look good or gain popularity for yourself. Ironically you would most likely gain more popularity and respect by being more tactful anyhow.

Does it matter? Any decision made that appears pre-determined before the final process based on criteria which is biased towards gender and/or colour can be considered wrongly discriminative, whether you want to consider it positive or negative. Maybe it was that there were other candidates equally as qualified to do the job and KBJ was chosen at that point because she happened to be a female black lady, or maybe she was just the best person for the job. If either was the case then why did Biden not just say this? It would be quite simple to have done so. Yeah, but was there a need to do it? What was the purpose of the announcement other than for political gains?

I couldn't give a rats ass about over sensitive people in general, especially the "white privileged males". I was actually pointing to the possibility that the "pre-selection" could and has been perceived as discrimination in a bad way, since it was based on colour and gender, which is exactly why (so it appears) the selection was made in the first place - To show that the previously wrong acts of discrimination throughout history by suppressing certain groups needs to end. So in an act of ending colour and gender discrimination, he pre-announces that he will choose a person based on their skin colour and gender. All sounds rather hypercritical wouldn't you say? So, just to reiterate again, I support, welcome and applaud the appointment of KBJ. However, (in my humble opinion) the act of pre announcing that the next Judge is going to be... "a person of a certain gender and of a certain colour" is the very discrimination tactic that modern western society is trying to eliminate.

Yes, no one is arguing his choice. We (or so it appears) all agree that KBJ was an excellent choice and a long time coming!! All we are saying, is that it would have been wiser to have kept his mouth shut. In my opinion it would have given his choice even more strength and credibility if he hadn't "pre selected" publicly. I just think that his announcement prior potentially undermines his choice, or at least provides fuel to encourage or create a different perspective which could undermine his choice. In modern society people want to feel that there is totally unbiased equal opportunity (maybe just an idealism). So many groups have been supressed throughout history, be it race, creed or gender driven. The key is to give the previously supressed groups that unbiased opportunity without appearing biased, be that positive or negative. My son's wife is Afro Caribbean, she works in the legal system, I have had this discussion with her and though delighted by Biden's choice, she agrees that his announcement prior could be perceived negatively, which potentially takes the "shine" off KBJ's appointment.

This is something I'm currently dealing with in my work. I have a number of younger staff who feel they have been discriminated against because non have been selected for promotion and the person who was successful was of a "senior" age. They fail to accept that the promotion was given using a well established points scoring system based on an extensive criteria non of which considers age, gender... I'm now coming under pressure from the HR department to reconsider my decision (in fear of an age discrimination lawsuit) even though I can demonstrate that the person selected was the most capable and qualified for the position. To be clear, I'm an advocate of equally opportunity, but I also understand and appreciate that logically there cannot always be an equal outcome. I'm sure KJB is the most capable and the most qualified for the job, and I'm sure she will demonstrate this during her service. No one is questioning the decision on whether she is the right person or not, what is in question is whether or not the decision was pre conceived and for what purpose. As zapatos said (see below) maybe this was the reason? That is a good point, and I'd like to believe the motivation around his statement was to show his feelings, thoughts, and consideration towards honesty and integrity. If so, Good for Joe also.

As Genady stated, why does he need to prove a nonexistence? It's for those who claim god is real to prove existence. He points his finger at those who claim beyond doubt at the same time contradicting/ignoring or not providing scientific evidence. He only claims the people delusional who actually for all intent are delusional when they make unfounded and absurd claims with nothing but blind faith to back it up. From the talks and interviews I have seen him in he shows the upmost respect for people who have religious faiths & beliefs but at the same time respect the scientific method. If I were to proclaim that I believe in the flying, 2 headed, pig god, who talks to me all the time and is the creator of all things and that the science is wrong, would you consider me delusional? Should I ask you to prove the non existence of such a being?

I'm not sure this is true (my bold) any selection criteria ignored in favour of skin colour, gender, race, religion... could be considered negative discrimination.

Yes, she is a very attractive lady. I wonder if she has more freckles than she appears to but hides them well with make up? I know some redheads have many freckles while others have few. I also notice that there seems to be a correlation with the "gingerness" of the hair and the number of freckles. Those that appear very ginger tend to have more freckles where those that are closer to blonde have fewer?

Do you mind, I was just taking a sip off coffee whilst reading this and spat it out in laughter! My first love was a fiery red head, she had freckles everywhere, I found them rather attractive myself. To be fair though, I'm not sure about other cultures but certainly in mine a red headed male would not feature very high on a list of physical "attractiveness" from any general survey conducted. It's generally the usual cliché of - tall, dark and handsome as top contenders. A short, "ugly" redheaded male doesn't stand much of a chance and would generally have to recruit his charm, wit and comedy skills to gain attention. I know this from experience because a good friend of mine fits this description and he is under no illusion when it comes to attracting potential partners. He has honed his personality and social skills to some success. On the other hand I have known and even dated some very attractive redheaded women. There is a redheaded lady that attends the gym where I currently work out, she is very attractive and gains much attention.

+1 Well if you're happy then I'm happy... Ok I'll bite and have a go. Yes, its rational to be an atheist and believe in religion. I'm an atheist and also consider myself a rationalist, who also believes in the concepts and some ideas of most religions.