zapatos

I used to live on Long Island, not far from New York City. I am in my 50's and didn't find the name Sidney particularly associated with older Jewish gents. When I saw the title of the thread my first thought was Sidney Poitier, who was raised Roman Catholic in The Bahamas.

So you are suggesting that people are supposed to be straight? The toy was consciously designed to drive left. There was no design for people. So according to your definition males are not normal as we are not what the majority human being is. That is ridiculous.

I am not defending the prevailing theory. I am told that the prevailing theory is correct and am given evidence by others to support that position. You are now stating that the prevailing theory is wrong, that the universe is not expanding. If the universe is not expanding, it is either static or contracting (unless you are suggesting another possibility). All I am asking is that you do the same as those who support expansion, and give me some evidence. I am not asking you to prove the prevailing theory is wrong. I am asking you to prove that you are right. Not the same in detail, but in many ways similar to the big bang. I realize this is just your speculation at this point, but have you compared your ideas yet to BBT and found problems with it that your theory corrects? Time would tick the same tomorrow morning as it does today. I'm not sure what background gravity is, but if mass is closer then it would of course have a greater impact on me. Distance itself doesn't change, but obviously things would be closer. Are you saying the universe is collapsing at this point? I guess I'd then expect to see a blueshift instead of a redshift.

First of all, I never made the claim that the cosmological redshift = an expanding universe. Therefore I'm under no obligation to back up that claim. You on the other hand have suggested the universe is not expanding. That leaves steady state or contraction. The obligation belongs to you to support that position. You cannot simply say "here is my theory, prove I am wrong". Can you explain what you mean by "gravity must have been mad, once in the past, and since then decreasing"? What do you mean by 'mad' and what do you mean by 'since then decreasing'?

If the universe was not expanding then I would not say that the univeverse must collapse, but that the univers is collapsing. Unless you are suggesting that some force is keeping the universe in a steady state? Do you have any evidence that the universe is collapsing? Look around. It would appear as you now see it.

Transfer useful genes from animals to plants.

Nope, still not subtle enough...

If you are walking away from me at 2 mph, slowly accellerating, and I am throwing baseballs at you at a 20 mph, they will hit you. Baseballs thrown at you while you are at 10 mph and 15 mph will also hit you. But at the point you are moving at 25 mph, the balls I am throwing at you at 20 mph will never hit you, even if they travel for eternity. Similarly, photons travelling toward you at c from a distant galaxy will never hit you once the gap between you and the galaxy is growing at a rate faster than c.

To be better informed; to understand others better; to prepare for a job as a tv evangelist. See above. Too broad of a question to answer. What is your point of this statement? There are also many religious people who have not read the bible or received extensive exposure to religion. Not necessarily. As soon as you realize you don't believe in God you should label yourself an atheist. A question in return: Should Christians get extensive exposure to different religions before labelling themselves as Christian? By 'most popular' do you mean most copies sold? Probably because of the built in audience. Every Catholic I've ever known has received a copy on their First Communion. It's like giving someone a card on their birthday. I cannot think under what category you might label the bible as the 'best book ever created'. Maybe under the category of biggest profit of all time.

I agree with iNow.

Does this mean that a photon can never travel from its location inside the event horizon in a direction toward the event horizon, as travelling toward the event horizon requires velocity greater than light speed? For example, if a photon is generated inside the event horizon, will its path only be directly (or indirectly) toward the singularity, but never toward the event horizon?

What is the behavior of a photon inside the event horizon? Is it able to travel at c from our perspective (if we could see it)? Since it cannot escape, does it simply orbit the black hole? If it is travelling on a path from the center of the black hole toward the event horizon, since we know that it cannot escape, does it lose velocity? Do photons even exist inside the event horizon?

I just read A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss and this book makes the argument that the universe may very well have come from nothing. He said "The lesson is clear: quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothing - meaning, in this case, I emphasize, the absence of space and time - it may require them." A great book covering many aspect of science I see being discussed here every day, presented at a high enough level for me to understand (although I'd be hard pressed to summarize it. ). You may wish to take a look at it.

Great explanations from both of you, thanks. I understand why natural selection seems a likely component of life now. Do you think it possible that natural selection can ever stop happening in a life form at some point? For example, let's say the DNA (or whatever) is not only the carrier of genetic information, but also serves as a physical structure of the organism that is critical for life. Then if the carrier of genetic information has mutations, it would affect the physical structure, thus resulting in death. And of course then no possibility of passing on the mutation. Or am I getting too far fetched?

ydoaPs started out fine when he said that the fear of an imminent nuclear weapons program is "Based on absolutely zero evidence". He then went from that statement to "Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program". My question is, What led ydoaPs to assert that "Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program"? Not all "zero evidence" is equal. If you have never looked for a nuclear weapons program you have no evidence of one. If you've looked extensively and not come up with any you still have no evidence of one. However, if you have no evidence after looking, and can specifically rule out a nuclear weapons program at some sites, then you can speak with more confidence (but not certainty) that one does not exist. The more you look the more confidence you have. I believe you can provide evidence that a nuclear weapons program does not exist (as opposed to providing evidence that an invisible dragon doesn't exit). An invisible dragon is supernatural and leaves no natural trace of itself. A nuclear weapons program is natural and therefore exists in nature. While it would be difficult, it is possible to search every inch of Iran and provide evidence that no trace of those components of a nuclear weapons program exists in Iran. Partial evidence that a nuclear weapons program does not exist would of course come from things such as unrestricted access to suspected sites by the IAEA, as this is a partial search of the country. After all of this writing I believe I would have been better served if my first response to ydoaPs had been: "You have asserted that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. What level of confidence do you have in that statement and why?"

Since extraterrestrial life is an unknown, I think a definition that is more flexible would be required. Perhaps something that says 'points x, y, and z are required, but indicators of life also include points a, b, and c'. In this case I would include Darwinian evolution as a possible indicator of life, but not a requirement for life. I'm speculating, and that is why my support has been only imagined scenarios. Is it really that unlikely that the ability to evolve in some form of life might exist at one time and then be lost? Why? Again, I think it is reasonable to create a definition of life that includes 'possible indicators' of life that don't necessarily have to exist in all possible life forms.

Yeah, line one is clearly out of whack. I stick with line two.

WTF? If you tell me you are hiding an invisible dragon in your garage I'm just supposed to accept that claim and not question it? I guess they changed the rules on this site. I didn't realize that you were now allowed to make factual claims but not be expected to provide evidence. :blink:

Based on absolutely zero evidence, btw. 1) Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program. I understand that there is no evidence (known publicly at least) that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and I have heard many people say they don't think that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but I am curious how much evidence you have that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. I was unable to find any although admittedly I may have missed something.

I don't see the possibility of an artificial uterus anytime soon, but this might be something to think about long term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus

Unfortunately I don't think any concession to the pro-life crowd short of 'life begins at conception' will do. I also don't think changing the discussion to personhood will do either. From my perspective we should just go with the idea that abortion is legal and come up with a 'reasonable' time frame needed to recognize the pregnancy and make a decision on whether or not to terminate. I think 26 weeks sounds like a reasonable time frame. There will never be agreement on when life begins, when personhood begins, what brain function determines life, etc. Therefore we should try to stay away from that kind of discussion. Abortion was made legal without answers to those questions, so let's not introduce them now. I like this proposal a lot, except for the problem that the date of independent living will likely shorten over time. I'd prefer to lock the date in.

I was not trying to develop an appropriate definition of life. You asked if there were any problems with a specific definition and I pointed out a problem that may exist if you were including extraterrestrial life. If you are not including extraterrestrial life I have no problem with that definition. If you are including extraterrestrial life, then I do. Without mutations to DNA we would not have evolution. If a life form exists that cannot have a heritable mutation, darwinian evolution would not apply. Abiogenesis could be part of it. An environment may exist that allows for a simple form of life to form over and over again without reproducing. A life form may exist where the information on how to reproduce is encoded on a portion of the organism critical to life. If that portion of the organism changes, it cannot live. We hadn't been necessarily discussing 'complex' life forms. That will likely be a different issue as that life form needed some method to become complex. Although I suppose it is possible for a life form to originally be subject to evolutioin, but then to have that ability to evolve cease due to environmental or organism functions.

The risk is not greater just because of the greater likelihood. As you pointed out, risk is a combination of likelihood and impact. Based on your scenario you have not shown that the risk of local terrorism is greater than the risk of nuclear holocaust. I would not be surprised to find that at this point in time that Israel has determined that the risk of nuclear annihilation is a bigger risk to Israel than a suicide bomber in a market. While it is nice that you have such confidence that Israel need not worry about Iran, I doubt that Israel has your confidence. When contemplating the possible end of the Jewish state due to an Iranian nuclear strike (one bomb will quite likely do it), I imagine that Israel believes a bit more risk mitigation is in order.

No need for me to propose anything. It is already being done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology Without developing a hypothesis about how life on Mars may have existed, scientists would not know how to design their experiments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars Well, as I said, if we are talking about extraterrestrial life, Darwinian evolution may not be a factor. Evolution on earth is possible due to DNA and how it is replicated. It is easy enough to imagine scenarios where that type of replication, and thus Darwinian evolution, would not take place.

One of the reasons to make a definition of life which you don't know exists is to aid you in your research. If an astrobiologist wishes to search for life on places other than earth it is helpful to have some idea of the evidence you should be searching for. Developing a hypothesis based on what you already know is not really that hard. It is standard science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology