zapatos

By the laws of nature do you mean physics? If so, then yes. And the organizing force to the universe is also physics.

Well, yeah. When you get right down to it, I think it's all in the brain combined with sensory input of the natural world. Believers just process it differently than non-believers.

That is a bit of a mystery to me. I've often thought it would be nice to have faith, to believe that no matter what happened I would be taken care of, and to believe that I would have eternal happiness. It must be very comforting and allow you to manage what life throws at you with with confidence. But alas, that is not the case for me. So I can only guess how it works for those who say they know God. I think that different people know God in different ways. Some probably think they know God only because they were raised to believe it. They are probably faking it because they think they should know God, and if they just keep trying it will eventually come to them, as it seems to come to those around them. I would think most of these have really convinced themselves, and are not intentionally trying to mislead others about their faith. Others probably believe it because it is the only thing that makes sense to them. "How could us being here, just be a mistake? How could something this complex come by accident?" And other versions. They may or may not 'know' God. And I am sure there are others who KNOW God, who feel God around them at all times, who have actually felt God. I really have no idea how that works. Again, I can only guess. As far as I can tell, if He is enforcing his authority it is only by making people feel guilty. I don't believe God is responsible for floods, fires, children dying, AIDS, people winning or losing football games, politicians winning or losing, or a meal coming out poorly because the cook used His name in vain. But some believers do suffer mentally/emotionally if they believe they are displeasing God. So if he is enforcing his authority, that is the only way I see it being done.

Are you not simply choosing which authority you will submit to? God versus man? How is answering to one authority instead of another an increase in personal liberty? I do not give up my conscience because I am an atheist. As far as I can tell, you simply have an additional authority you have to account to.

It seems to me that the correlation is not so much between religion and poverty as it is between certain types of people and poverty. In my mind, religion is kind of a framework that allows different types of people work within it. Those who are kind will tend to help those in need, those who are logical will tend to discount the fanciful aspects of religion, those who are ambitious will tend to move up the hierarchy and do what they must to stay there, and those who are gullible will take it all literally. Not much different than many other frameworks. Take corporate America for example. Those who are kind will often end up in non-profits, those who are logical will not believe that a new aftershave will result in women throwing themselves at you, those who are ambitious will be your corporate officers who want nothing more than more, and those who are gullible will believe all the ads. Many people foolishly give to the church so that the leaders can live in luxury, just as many people foolishly buy designer clothes so the CEOs can live in luxury. You could make the same comparisons to politics. I'm sure we could go back and forth all day pointing out good done by politicians versus bad done by politicians. But is politics bad, or is it specific practitioners? It would probably make more sense to criticize specific acts by specific politicians than to say, 'politics is bad, here is an example'. Politics was not responsible for Nixon acting like he did, Nixon was responsible. I don't believe there are any absolutes. Clearly not all help from religion comes with proselytizing, and clearly religion has caused people to suffer and die. But is it religion that is so bad for people, or does it depend on who is in the organization? Does religion promote bad deeds more than other organizations, or is it just easier to point to when the practioners claim to be there in support of their followers?

Can you expand on this please? I'm not suggesting that it is wrong, it is just that my personal exposure to religion hasn't shown that. I'm trying to get a better understanding of what others are seeing. Preferably if you could give examples of the kinds of things religion is doing currently along these lines.

That is all very interesting but rather irrelevant since I did not say medicine was not a science. What I did was question whether a GP was a scientist. You should have looked up Scientist, επιστήμονας, or 科学者.

Who declared it a matter of fact? I don't know what regulation of the right to practice medicine has to do with whether or not its participants are scientists. I don't know what medicine being one of the hardest branches of studies has to do with whether or not its participants are scientists. No. But when I asked if my nephew or a nurse was a scientist, you asked if they got a degree from a faculty of medicine. Since you did not mention any other schools that left open the possibility that you believed someone was not a scientist if their degree was from some other school. You did not say so explicitly, so I asked. But you do seem to be saying that a degree in Exercise Physiology, if obtained from faculty of medicine, makes you a scientist.

No. Are you suggesting that if you get a degree from faculty of medicine you are a scientist, but you are not necessarily a scientist if you got an equivalent degree from another school? But if getting your degree from a faculty of medicine is what makes you a scientist, then does that mean the graduates in Exercise Physiology are scientists?

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. My nephew is an Emergency Medical Technician. Is he also a scientist? How about a nurse?

My position is the same. Future humans only have those rights if they were granted to them by someone, and they are only meaningful to those future humans if they can be and are enforced.

The way it was explained to me was that when a ball was tossed straight up, although velocity moved through zero, it did not spend any measurable duration of time at zero. Therefore the object was always in motion. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Simple_Harmonic_Motion_Orbit.gif In this example of simple harmonic motion, even though velocity passes through 0, it seems that point is no different than any other point. That is, why would one point be considered in motion while another would not?

My morals and the way I try to live my life are based on my upbringing as a Catholic. It is important enough to me that even though I became an atheist, I sent both of my sons to Catholic schools for 12 years. Most of my comments in religious threads on this site are in defense of religion because I feel that too many of the people on this site are quick to point out the problems with religion without acknowledging the positive aspects. The priests and nuns I know have never judged me the way you do, and the people on this site have never questioned my character based on as little information about me as you have. If the way you interact with me is indicative of the way you interact with others who do not share your beliefs, then it gives me a much better insight into the hostility I see in so many others toward religion. What chance do I have of getting others to be more understanding of religion if people like you, whose job it should be to convince others your way is right, act as you do? It is people with your type of attitude who are pushing people like me further and further from religion. I would sooner align my morals and character with any atheist on this site than with any of the religious like you.

Wait, why am I evil? Are you saying I turned evil when I was a 10 year old in grade school? How do you know I was raised in good? What do you know about me or my family? And how do you know not many of the kids at my school were Christians? And most importantly, who are you to judge me?

That is easy for me. I became a Christian because my parents had me baptized, took me to church, sent me to Catholic school, and told who and what God was. The experience that made me turn to atheism was also the fact that I went to school where I learned about science, how to think logically, and to question what I am told.

Assuming I understand correctly what you are saying, I agree. If G1 and G8 were born in the same instant of time, G1 would look older to me than G8 because the light from G8 has been traveling to me for so long. I think we are looking at the same thing from two different points of view. If I go outside tonight with a telescope I can indeed look at G1 and G8 at the same time, meaning I can see both of those galaxies tonight. I am graphing what I can see tonight, knowing full well that the G8 I am looking at is how it was many billions of years ago. I think when you graph it you are building in how to have them both appear to be the same age. Hope I said that clearly enough...

Ok, back to this ugly example: Let's say that at T1 (now), galaxies 1 - 12 are lined up as so, and there is an equal distance between each galaxy. And let's say the distance between each galaxy is 1 trillion miles. G1 s G2 s G3 s G4 s G5 s G6 s G7 s G8 s G9 s G10 s G11 s G12 We know that all space is expanding equally. That is, the space between G1 and G2 will expand at the same rate as the space between G7 and G8, etc. So now let's say we have moved forward in time 1 year to T2, and during that one year, space has expanded and the distance between each galaxy has grown by 1 trillion miles to 2 trillion miles, as shown here: G1 ss G2 ss G3 ss G4 ss G5 ss G6 ss G7 ss G8 ss G9 ss G10 ss G11 ss G12 Since there was one trillion miles between G1 and G2 at T1, and there are now two trillion miles between G1 and G2 at T2, we can say that the distance between G1 and G2 has grown at 1 trillion miles per year. And since there were two trillion miles between G1 and G3 at T1, and there are now four trillion miles between G1 and G3, we can say that the distance between G1 and G3 has grown at 2 trillion miles per year. Now take a look at what happened between G1 and G8. At T1, there were 7 trillion miles between G1 and G8. At T2, there are 14 trillion miles between G1 and G8. That means the distance between G1 and G8 grew at 7 trillion light years per year. That is why the distances to galaxies further away from us are growing at a greater rate than the distance to galaxies closer to us, even though the rate of expansion is the same everywhere in the universe. And since light can only travel 6 trillion miles per year, the light from G8 (or anything further away from G1 than G8) will never be able to reach G1 as long as the expansion continues at this or a greater rate.

I am having some trouble understanding what you are trying to convey to me. I understand the further in space it is, the further in time it is also. But I don't see why you are moving from T1 to T2. We are all in the same time. If we are at T2/G1, then G2, G3, G4, etc. are also at T2. I agree that what we are seeing happened a long time ago and in a different location, but we are still just talking about what we can see now, that is, T2. And after another unit of time has passed it will look as it does at T3.

Thanks for sharing such a personal story. Very interesting.

In my example the G represents a galaxy. G1 to G12 was not a time sequence. It was meant to represent galaxies and the space between them. You can sit on any galaxy and look in any direction toward any other galaxies that you wish. The change in time was represented by moving from: T1 - G1 s G2 s G3 s G4 s G5 s G6 s G7 s G8 s G9 s G10 s G11 s G12 to T2 - G1 ss G2 ss G3 ss G4 ss G5 ss G6 ss G7 ss G8 ss G9 ss G10 ss G11 ss G12 As we progressed in time from T1 to T2 you can see that there is now additional space between the galaxies due to expansion. If the Milky Way is G1 we can see galaxy G12 as it was closer to the time of the BB, in apparant great speed away from us. At the same time, someone on G12 can see the Milky Way (G1) as it was closer to the time of the BB, in apparant great speed away from them.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert. Because the expansion of space is the same everywhere, you get my example: G1 ss G2 ss G3 ss G4 ss G5 ss G6 ss G7 ss G8 ss G9 ss G10 ss G11 ss G12 There is no preferred position in space. No matter where you are, the further the galaxy from you, the faster it seems to move. In your example: G1 s G2 ss G3 sss G4 ssss G5 sssss G6 ssssss G7 sssssss G8 ssssssss G9 sssssssss G10 ssssssssss G11 sssssssssss G12 If you were sitting at G8, space would be acting differently looking toward G12 than if you were looking toward G1. I may be mistaken but you seem to be mixing space and velocity. If you were to illustrate the apparant velocity from your location at G1 as you looked into the very long past, you would see: G1 v G2 vv G3 vvv G4 vvvv G5 vvvvv G6 vvvvvv G7 vvvvvvv G8 vvvvvvvv G9 vvvvvvvvv G10 vvvvvvvvvv G11 vvvvvvvvvvv G12

Looking at some of the 'amateurs' who have been successful, it was not just their undergraduate studies that made them successful. It was a combination of undergraduate studies and work experience. I'm sure that right out of the blocks a person with a PhD will be much better prepared to contribute to science than a person with a BS. However, a person with a BS, 10 years of experience, and a desire to do research can be quite successful.

The expansion rate is the same everywhere. Imaging the G's below represent galaxies, and each 's' is one unit of space. You will notice that G7 is one unit from G6, and G8 is two units from G6, and G9 is three units from G6, etc. G1 s G2 s G3 s G4 s G5 s G6 s G7 s G8 s G9 s G10 s G11 s G12 Now picture space expanding. There will be a new unit of space between each galaxy, so now the picture looks like the following, with two units of space between each galaxy: G1 ss G2 ss G3 ss G4 ss G5 ss G6 ss G7 ss G8 ss G9 ss G10 ss G11 ss G12 The result being that now, G7 is two units from G6, and G8 is four units from G6, and G9 is six units from G6, etc. So the further away a galaxy is, the faster is seems to be receding from you. And this holds true for any galaxy you choose to start at. Start from any one and you see that the further away a galaxy is from you, the faster it seems to be receding from you. If I'm at G1, G2 seems to be receding FROM ME slowly, and G11 and G12 seems to be receding FROM ME quickly. If I'm at G12, G11 seems to be receding FROM ME slowly, and G1 seems to be receding FROM ME quickly. EDIT for fat fingers.

If I understand you correctly, it sounds as if you are saying the space between galaxies in a supercluster is expanding. That is not so, as gravity is stronger than the effects of DE. It is between superclusters that you see space expanding. But with the baloon analogy, you can pick ANY dot to be the one that stays in the same place. The rest move away relative to it. Just as the view is from anywhere in the universe. We all look like we are the one dot not moving. I think the confusion here is when you said "if someone were standing on one of the outer galaxies looking toward earth we would look like we were moving outward at more than the SOL and the galaxies around us would be also. But this isn't the case. The galaxies around us are not moving away from us at that speed, are they?" The person standing on one of the outer galaxies looking toward earth would see us moving outward FROM THEM at greater than SOL, and the galaxies around us would also be moving outward FROM THEM at greater the SOL. That is, the galaxies around us are not moving away FROM US at greater than SOL, they are moving away FROM THEM at greater than SOL.

yes yes yes 5%