tar

disarray, Well yes, if we can't know, it is not pertinent. That is, if it ever was or ever will be pertinent then we should be able to witness it or imagine its existence as being required, or evident in some manner, or discern that things should later be a certain way, or something. In all those cases one could easily assign the entity or process or situation or arrangement of matter and energy as being belonging to this universe. Either it exists now in this universe, is the cause or effect of this universe, or is the fundamental framework upon which this universe is built, or the basic stage upon which universes happen, which all carry with them a "belonging to" as in any way that reality IS arranged, is the way THIS reality is arranged, and is therefore "my" reality. My universe, my Cosmos, my existence, and nothing related to it, shadowed by it or casting a shadow on it, is "other" than "our" universe. If there is an existence that has nothing to do with this one, then it has nothing to do with this one, and we have no need to care about it. As far as other sentient beings, I would guess there are. Same as there are people on some Pacific island that have not contacted the rest of the world in 20 years, there could easily be other places in the galaxy that have spawned life...and some entity or another aware of it's own existence. And given the number of galaxies out there, the number of these entities is probably large. But infinite...this is not required. Perhaps the case. It seems reasonable, that whatever is came from whatever was before, and with no starting point being required...always existing, would translate to infinite. Regards, TAR

Ultimate Infinity, Perhaps you are just finding the idea of infinity neat. Like I say a number, the biggest I can imagine, and you say that number, plus one. Like in this discussion, the idea of multiverses, trumps the idea of just one, created alone. Like there always is a before, always an after, always the next bigger entity, and always the entities that make up an entity. I claim the whole universe, and you imagine it a grain on a beach of universes. Well perhaps this is true, perhaps we just like to think that way. Either way, there comes a time where we are sufficiently insulated from the beginning and end of the universe, and sufficiently insulated from the other side of even a finite universe, and sufficiently insolated in time and space from the activities of a quark, that having areas of reality from which we are even more insulated, is not only awesome, but also depressing as we can never "get there" to witness it. For instance, let's say I am going to say a number, and you plan to then say the number, and add one, to trump me, but it takes me 50 years to say my biggest number. What are you going to do, take the following 50 years of your life, to pronounce the number I just pronounced, so you can add one syllable to the end? Or worse yet, what if it is going to take me an infinite amount of time to pronounce my infinitely large number. You will never get the chance to pronounce it again, and add one syllable to it, because that would take two infinities to accomplish. So by claiming there is always something smaller, and always something larger, I think you have forced an answer to the thread question. And I think the answer is the universe absolutely is created alone. For if it is, it is. If it is not, we can never get there to verify, so it might just as well be considered as having been created alone. Regards, TAR

Ultimate Infinity, I suppose it could be awesome, in theory, but in practice it would rather fleeting. That is suppose you found a civilization living on an electron. You couldn't talk to it, one vibration of one wavelength of the Bflat note you spoke the h in hello with, would span perhaps 30 generations or whatever, and the situation you saw one microsecond would be gone before the light announcing the situation to you reached your equipment and was processed and sent to your computer screen and to your eye and to your brain. That is, whole lifetimes of the tiny folk would go by in an moment of your existence. So awesome? I don't think so. More frustrating, as you could not ever do anything for or to or with anything you discovered. Perhaps it is already awesome to be the giant god scale being, relative to any entity occurring at the subatomic scale. Except as distant as we are from such a tiny world, because of scale, we are additionally distant to a similar tiny entity on a fingenail on a person on the other side of the world. That is, how you going to keep all these tiny enities in mind? They really don't matter much to us, only the macro sum total of their activity would make a ripple in our world, or make any difference to us. So basically I think we already have a pretty awesome situation, already immense and long lived, beyond belief, and already quicker and tinier, more numerous and intricate than we can imagine. What could be better than that? What difference would it make if infinities were true? Regards, TAR

Forgive me Memammal. Let me plead temporary insanity. It was directed at ultimate infinity, and his claim that things go forever up and forever down, forever out and forever in, or what ever it was he was claiming. I edited the post, to address the proper addressee

michel123456, Thank you. I guess if I had Gadwin printscreen I would be a more complete person myself. However, I was just wondering if there is a difference, copyrightwise, between recording the actual data google is sending you, and taking a picture of your computer screen? regards, TAR

Ultimate Infinity, I think perhaps the world is big enough, and fine enough, even it it was finitely so. In your muses, as you change grain size up, or change grain size down, consider how the things, that must exist on all levels, change character, and therefore do not lend themselves to creating a reality exactly like the larger, only smaller, or exactly like the smaller only larger. Two or three thoughts to bring with you on your grain size travels. Light speed. Orbits. and Brownian motion. A couple times ten down you start getting into a different situation where electric and magnetic waves transit across the scene so rapidly as that what light or gravity would mean to you, as this tiny observer, would change character, from what it means to you as a human size observer. For instance how do you evolve sensors that differentiate between red wavelengths and blue wavelengths, if your sensor is smaller than a wavelength of either? And what light "means" on the subatomic level, is a different thing than what it "means" on a galactic scale, where the same impulse that flashed across the scene below will take a million years to transit the scene above. And Brownian motion. What is the analog at this level? What is the analog at the galactic level. How long does it take to shake a planet? What the energy of a photon does to a star is a different thing than what it does to a microbe. And orbits. It has been suggested that atoms are like little solar systems, only the analogues all do not work. And from human scale the orbits of an electron are more of a probabilistic endeavor, than the plotting of a repeating ellipse that will help account for the seasons. So what time scale and distance from the atom do you imagine to assess its reality. So you can't take you with you, when you go on these trips. When scale changes, everything changes. We are thusly insulated from the smallest that there is, and the largest that there is, by the time scale set by our lifetimes and the time it takes a neural pulse to travel to and from the tips of our toes, and by the size scale set by the reach of our arms and the size of our stride, the wavelengths of light and sound we can sense and the periods that are discernable between the lifetime of our universe, and the spin of a quark. To suggest there must be more in every direction, ignores the fact that there already is more, more than we can handle, more than we can ever know, and more than we will ever need. Regards, TAR

disarray, I agree with the sentiment in your last post. My letting people make up their own mind, was not talking about violence. I was responding to your constructive criticism about my writing style and indicating I prefer the Socratic method of discussion. Regards, TAR

Robittybob1,o Here are two pictures, thanks to Google Earth of the site, from about 150 miles and about 8 miles. Notice the large flat plain to the south. Notice the large flat plain to the north, Notice the ridge, about 3 miles long running from 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock with about 10 or 12 blind alley type valleys on the south side and six or 8 on the north side, with Golbekli Tepe right in the middle of the ridge. Here is the hypothesis. After the last ice age, the plaiins were grasslands supporting populations of wild sheep, wild boar, deer and foxes and lions and such. For thousands of years, men would chase the prey across the plains and finally corner them in one of these valleys. It happened so much and so many tribes found success in this manner, that over the years they would build blinds and move boulders into the heads of the valley, to hide behind, and stand on and such to make it easier to accomplish a successful hunt. As time went on they had the bright idea of building a man made blind alley, with all the appropriate hiding places, and things to stand on. New generations would bury the old and build new sites. The area was so convenient for successful hunting, with all the blind alleys and the central killing zone, that people hung around, and down away from the killing zones, lived in villages, began domesticating wheat, caught some of the sheep and wild boar and foxes and wolves and domesticated them as well. Maybe used horses or dogs to herd the animals toward the trapping ridge. The stones got fancier and tied us to the stars, as well. Notice the reliefs on two of the stands, with the lion at the top (us the hunter) and the wild boar at the bottom (the prey.) Regards, TAR rotate the images 90 CW

Thread, Way back in the thread I gave directions to draw the 12 diamonds out of 12 strokes...I think. But here are the directions again, possibly more complete, now knowing that the side of a diamond is .955 (approx.) of a radii of the sphere. Draw or inscribe or use tape or string or whatever, but here is an easy way. Prepare 12 lengths of your media, .955 the diameter of the sphere you wish to demarcate. Mark a North pole, a South pole, and a prime meridian (a fixed point on the equator of the sphere, halfway between N and S) , with small removable or coverable marks. Make a plus sign with two of the diameters and place the center on the North pole, with one "arm" pointed directly toward the meridian mark and the South pole. This establishes the exact position of the other 5 plus signs you can make from the remaining 10 diameters. Place the second cross on the South pole, with one of the arms headed directly toward the meridian line (and the North pole.) Now think of the next cross as an X and put its center on the equator, but not on the meridian mark, but 45 degrees to the left or right, so that all four ends exactly touch the ends of two arms coming from the North and two arms coming from the South. Do the same to the right or left of the meridian mark with the 4th plus sign. The position of the 5th and sixth plus signs are obvious from here. Regards, TAR The meridian mark will be right in the center of diamond number 1 with diamond 2 and the red wheel going up and to the right. Up and to the left is diamond 7 and the second diamond in the yellow wheel. The diamond to the right, along the equator from the number one diamond is the number 11 diamond which is the origin and end point of the blue wheel, going up and to the right (to the number 3 diamond), and the green wheel, going up and to the left (to the number 2 diamond.)

so if it goes infinitely down why is anything smaller than a Planck length without meaning?

disarray, I would rather give the situation, and let people make up their own minds, then to tell them what to make of it. For instance, my reaction to the women ruling the world being a less violent world, is to point to Syria and Clinton's desire for regime change, and her displeasure with Assad's brutal ways. If you want the guy out, declare war and defeat him. Short of that, you stay the hell out, and engage him diplomatically, or you get four years with 250,000 deaths and millions of refugees, and an ISIS stronghold in Raqqa. Problem with the all women leader plan, is you still have the men. And if the battle between right and wrong becomes a battle between estrogen and testosterone, then we are really in trouble. Regards, TAR And I would tell this story. 4 or five years ago, I got angry at a clerk at a supermarket for charging me 8 dollars for a meal I got every day for about 5 or 6 dollars. Well to make a long story short I wound up cursing at a shift leader, whacking the meal that was on the scale and leaving the store, never to return. My stepmom thought it was an emotional outburst brought on by LOW T.

I don't think whacking KKK is appropriate. I don't think killing gays is appropriate. I do think fighting ISIS is appropriate. I do think putting violent, criminal gang members in jail...is appropriate, even if they are Mexican, or Black, I do think it OK to watch a white supremacist group, even if they are white. I am not encouraging violence, but when you have a mortal enemy it is required to fight them to the death. My political point here is the same as I was trying to make, with the same failure to make it, as my stance in the "What is the biggest problem in America" thread. And people get defensive and self righteous here and think I am trying to make this political point or that one, when I am asking for cooler heads to prevail, and to give a fellow American the benefit of the doubt, and look for all the things and ways that put the other fellow or gal on your side, not look for that one thing you put in their head that makes them worthy of your hatred. For instance, we cannot, at the same time, say that "we" are not that way, and be talking about a significant portion of the American Population. Regards, TAR

disarray, But is exactly the problem we are having with hatred in this country, that I am trying to get to the bottom of. And by get to the bottom of, I mean that all those things you say about denouncing violence and calling for cooler heads, works in terms of what we should be saying to people that go out during a permitted peaceful meeting of white supremacists and start whacking them on the head and stabbing them. Not intending at all in getting into a semantical battle, but violence is not OK just because you hate white supremacists...or is it? That is exactly the thread question, and exactly why I ask people to put themselves in the other shoes, and not place their own fears and motivations in the hearts of people they disagree with or disapprove of. Use me as an example. I started this thread to talk about hate and hating the hater, and immediately people started in on me for being a hater, a bigot, a right wing lunatic... all of which are false accusations. Dimreeper is after me to squelch my hate and attain peace...which means he thinks I need a moral compass resetting...which I don't think I need. Here are two made up situations, and I want to draw the parallels between, for purposes, not of semantical round abouts, but for purposes of noticing that people that live in glass houses should not throw stones, and he without sin should cast the first one. Bunch of kids looking for something to do says to each other "lets go out and beat up some fags/gays." Bunch of kids looking for something to do says to each other "lets go out and kill some crackers/white supremacists." Regards, TAR

disarray, I am trying to say that we, in this country hate people that hate. And while politically I am trying to point out that this is bad, psychologically I am trying to point out that this is the way we make each other behave properly. Make each other follow the law, moral code and morays of the group we are in. In this case, the U.S. But look at the white supremacists clashing with the Bernie type "stop the hate" by any means group rallied up on the internet. The two groups hate each other. Regards, TAR but each group is Americans, and therefore "us"

Thread, Here is first draft workup of the number of internal degrees that each division shield/diamond will add up to, depending on how many degrees per division, in terms of the color wheel. For instance, with 20 degree divisions, one main 60 degree diamond would be divided up into 9 divisions, each 20 degrees by 20 degrees. + In that case there would be 9x12 or 108 divisions and 110 circles on the sphere. Each division would have the area of 110/108th of a circle, plus the area in between 4 touching circles. So the circle area in each division would be the total of the 4 pieces of circle found in the division. In the case of the 20degree divisions, which is 9 divisions per main 60 degree diamond, the total of the internal angles in each division will be 266.666(666repeating). For instance 110+73.333+80+103.333=366.666 Regards, TAR

dimreeper, If it does not matter if I hate the shooter and hate what he represents, because he is dead, why would it matter if you forgave the shooter and tolerated what he represents since he is dead? I think it matters because fundamentalists killing gays is a righteous act on their part, and we need to tell them and show them that this is activity that will absolutely not be tolerated, so that it is not considered a righteous act, but considered a crime. Regards, TAR

Thread, Interesting development. I was thinking about the balloon with the equal size circles on the intersections of the division lines. Each segment contains portions of four circles and the area between four touching circles... Lost a big section of my post here, but here is the main idea. Add up the angles inside each of the divisions. In the case of the 15 degree divisions there are 16 in a diamond. In the case of 16 in a diamond each adds up to 363.75. That means, if we assume each division line is of equal length within the diamond, and the circles earlier drawn on the intersections are equal because their radii are equal, then each of the 16 divisions of the diamond is of the area 363.75/360th of one of these circles, plus the area between four touching circles. Double checking, I am thinking about the "two extra" thing earlier run across. 15 degree divisions would make 16 per diamond times twelve or 192. 192 divisions and 194 circles which would mean there should be 194/12 circles within each diamond... which is 16.16666 circles per diamond. 16.16666 divided by 16 is 1.01041625. 1.0104165 times 360 is 363.74985, which without the abbreviated numbers would actually come out to exactly the 363.75 we have found is the case. Regards, TAR check with drawing posted in 162 every four number collection found inside a division adds up to 363.75

Thread, misplaced post deleted

I guess you could say I hate the idea. 1/3 of the population of the world lives as Mohammed lived. billions live modeling their lives after Christ or Moses or the Buddah If someone shoots a crowd of gay people killing 49, in the name of the Caliph...it matters. if we commit a drone strike against ISIS it matters if we drop a bomb on Hiroshima to stop Japanese Imperialism, it matters I am not sure you have a leg to stand on, if you think we are living in a world that would proceed along just fine if nobody disapproved of someone else's behavior. you can not put someone in jail AND be concerned with their freedom you cannot fight your enemies in a loving manner

or considering the importance of role models to this whole discussion, would you consider the shooter a hero or a villain, and what aspects of the shooter's behavior are the most reprehensible and which are the most admirable? What does it matter? He is dead? Well so is Moses and Jesus and Mohammed and Siddhartha and ghengis khan and hitler and timothy McVeigh. It matters. I reject completely the idea, dimreeper, that you do not hate, and I do.

the Pope? what is the point of hate that is the thread question why are you throwing up your hands well dimreeper, just for logical continuity, resolve for me the contradiction inherent in these two thoughts I love all humanity. I do not love spiteful people. Consider for a moment, for the purpose of investigating what hate is about, within one's own internal calculus, those people who you agree with and those people who you do not agree with. That is, of the 8 billion people in the world, which have your approval, and which have your disapproval?

cycles of violence are an obvious reality in the world revenge is a strong human emotion/need/goal, we want to even the score but take what happened at Pulse We want to fix it. We want to extract a pound of flesh. Somebody has to pay. Who should it be that takes our anger? Me? Homophobes? NRA? Republicans? Gay people with internal issues? The Old Testament? Republicans? Fundamental Christians? Fundamental Muslims? The Caliph? George Bush? Who should we hate? and if we should forgive, and love and tolerate, then why not love a hater

and can be exhibited by a person who is not hateful

dimreeper, Your synonyms each have different aspects of hate and a different strength of hatred attached to them, or they would not be different words, with different shades of meaning. If I am in your estimation a hateful person, and bitter about this, spiteful about that, and have some things about my character or behavior or words that repulse you, this is understandable, but for you to bring this to a thread on hate, and hating the hater, indicates your disapproval of my behavior. Regards, TAR in other words, disapproval is NOT a bad idea

disarray, I am only halfway through your link, and skimming at that. Was wondering if this guy is vetted. He has a tired light theory, and thinks the Earth must be a captured brown dwarf, and had micropublished a great number of works, on a wide variety of topics, all authored by him. Seems a very smart guy, but do you know his credentials? Regards, TAR