DrP

I guess it would be speculation as to what happens. It is certainly not 'impossible' for 2 stars travelling at relative speeds that are some fraction of C to hit head on. Regarding the odds though - as beecee mentioned, there are SO many galaxies in such a vast amount of space that have been spinning about for over 14 billion years... 'rare' becomes quite probable in this expanse. It just 'has' to have happened at some point... and if that was far enough away we would only just see it happening.... or it could have happened and we will not even see it for another 10 million years or more. 5 BH collisions in just a few years.... Does this point to it being more common that we might have thought? OK - C is around 671 Million mph according to google. The speed of our galaxy is about 0.5 Million mph. So lets say the average relative head on velocity of a galaxy collision is aprox 1 million mph. That's 1/671 of C. Do we know from colliders what happens to nuclei that collide head on at 1/671 of C - what types of radiation would that give off? Radio? With 2 stars passing directly though each other, with so much mass and substance I would assume some head on collisions - not sure how many would be needed to produce the type of FRBs detected but could it be speculated at? With regard to milli seconds for the event - well - it would be over pretty quickly at 1/671 of C. Assuming a spherical propagation of the radiation from the impact site across such a vast distance would we expect it to last more than a few milli seconds?

Death Star explosions!? I don't know how long it takes... but I was thinking along the lines of 2 stars from different galaxies passing through each other colliding head on at super velocity - the explosion would be immense and I would think some strange shit could happen on the nuclear level. Like an intergalactic collider. You are probably right though that it is something else. Do we know what to expect to detect from 2 stars striking head on from different galaxies passing through each other at speed in the range of some fraction of C?

Does it matter? Someone constantly repeats an argument that several well respected members have pointed to being a misunderstanding. They are given resources and references so they can research the facts and update their position based on the actual evidence rather than their mental ramblings. If they continue to repeat their behaviour then that behaviour is idiotic.... why not point it out? Calling them an idiot is not an insult if it is a fact. Newer members looking for advice might be warned off from those posters with negative rep... and for good reason. ... I have to agree though - neg rep for political siding isn't good. I do not know about this current disagreement regarding the victim blaming. I saw the whole thing a disgusting smear on the Republican party that they would consider this creep that has these allegations surrounding him... why not allow the investigation? If only to clear the guy's name. Why block the FBI from interviewing people who have information - maybe I am being cynical but it looks like they are covering for him in some old boys club fashion... I find it deplorable that this is even thought about let alone actually put forward by the WH and then just accepted by the public as a normal acceptable thing that happens in politics. I didn't neg rep anyone in that thread though. It isn't up to me though to say who and for what individuals give their rep for.

I disagree. I give it out when I see a post that claims fact when it is just nonsense drivel of the poster's imagination.. actually - I don't give it for that, but if they have been corrected or challenged and they then go off on further rants claiming their view point to be fact when 2 or 3 others have pointed to well tested science that proves them wrong then I give a red mark... a poster with lots of red marks is a flag to not take what they say that seriously if they are claiming a fact. For instance, why shouldn't a staunch flat earther or a proponent of their secret perpetual motion machine be marked out as someone who's opinion is probably not worth as much as someone who follows tried and tested scientific fact? - so I don't think they 'attack the poster' rather than give a warning to others that their opinions have regularly been way off from accepted reality.

This doesn't make any sense. Why do some things have an front and back but a star doesn't? .... and why does this lead to your 'modal shape' being a cube? None of it makes any sense. We can see that you are either making it up or just delusional as to your 'understanding' - probably a bit of both. It looks like crazy talk because it is just word salad with no substance in reality to back it up.

What causes 2 stars to collide? Two galaxies passing through each other? I always wondered what happens when 2 galaxies pass through each other - presumably many of the stars just go right through due to the space between then, but some must collide with great velocity. Would this do it? Could the SMBH in the centre crash? - that must be so rare though I doubt they would detect 20 a year.... although the universe is a big place and has been around for quite a while. Sorry to crash your great thread with my naïve questions - it isn't my field at all, but it is obviously fascinating.

lol - Being fair - His point was 'whatever the real explanation is is actually true whether we like it or believe it or not' - as far as I can tell. It is superfluous imo as it is just so obvious. What we have with ET is a lot of scientific evidence which points to it being the most likely mechanism for the development of life. Many don't believe it, but that doesn't make it wrong. Not being able to prove or disprove it doesn't make it right or wrong. I'll repeat once more to get back on the thread - I like Dawkins. I like his humanity. I like his logic. I liked his book - The God Delusion, which mentions and sums up his past books like The Selfish Gene. I found his interviews with Bill O'Rielly really, really embarrassing... that O'really guy is a total idiot.... and rude with it. I despair that people like that are accepted as mainstream newscasters and are allowed to sway so much opinion.

Presumably the truth, else why cover it up? Maybe Harvey Weinstein's mistake was not running for governor - he should have run and had his investigations quashed by the WH. ;-)

In this though, it doesn't matter what party is in charge or who is president. The investigation was barred by the WH.. to me that is unacceptable whatever the party politics. Presumably those that barred it from happening.

I'm not sure what his point is. I saw some comments about the guy's book he referred to. In 'The God Delusion' Dawkins mentions the scrap yard and the Jumbo Jet situation which creationist like to put forward as evidence that evolution can't work. They say you don't get a brand new jumbo jet from leaving all the scrap parts laying around no matter what the timescale. He explains how this is misunderstood and points to the bits that they get wrong and how it not a suitable analogy. In the other guy's book, that is suppose to refute Dawkins, he starts with this argument and makes the exact same errors that Dawkins points out in his book, drawing on the plane in the scrape yard analogy as a rebuttal of ET - it is as if he never read the book. He doesn't take Dawkins point and argue against it... he just re confirms Dawkins' point that the plane in the scrap yard is nothing like what you'd expect to see with ET and claims that as a rebuttal to the argument. I would say that he was stupid - but pointing that out doesn't take the moral high ground or win the argument. What can you do when you put forward an argument.... some one else writes a book claiming to rebut that argument, without actually addressing any of the points made in the book you wrote. I can't believe anyone would fall for such basic deception (I call it deception because I don't want to insult the authors intelligence - it is deception or stupidity) - I wonder if the guy even knows he is doing it.

Sorry - everyone likes humour - but not when it is deliberately used to derail a discussion. Your point was so poor. It's obvious! IF Donald Duck ACTUALLY made the universe then the answer to the question 'who made the universe?' would be Donald Duck. That is obvious - What's the point? We KNOW that DD is a fictional character so why even entertain the idea DD was responsible? The thing with god is that many people don't realise it is a fictional character - they think it is real. That so many believe it doesn't make it real/true. There is a lot of evidence supporting the ET - silly amounts. If you can't be bothered to read it and understand it then that's down to you. Don't expect to be taken seriously when you try to refute it and look stupid doing so. Bring exact points and let people discuss/refute them rather than attacking authors and science in general without actually bringing any science or testing or evidence to the table yourself. I'd like to retract this - Although most of the book seems pretty sound in it's reasoning with me - the Author is just a man and I would presume that if you trawled through the book then you would be able to find errors and or speculations (usually though he says when he is speculating - somethings we just don't know). So - I'll retract this - but will welcome any questions about any part of the book - I might need time to research the answer if I do not know it off hand... or other more knowledgeable than I can answer. I'm not going round in circle arguing nonsense about DD though - there is no point in stating the obvious.

You are talking about children... people lie to them about Santa and Tooth fairies all the time - it doesn't make them objective reality and you know that - why even put that forward as a support to your argument? If you are willing to accept any old crap then, fine - the tooth fairy or Cthulu did it or whatever - but don't expect to be taken seriously. No point in discussing anything with you if you are going to claim that whatever your mum told you about fairies and monsters is true. Very poor. I was expecting better somehow. Bye. I won't waste my time anymore then.

Of course - if the fairy really did do it then that is the correct explanation... but without any evidence of this fairy even existing why would anyone believe it was responsible? You don't blindly accept every explanation everybody puts forward.... you sift through looking at the evidences to build a picture of reality. The Tooth Fairy is clearly mythical - so why even give credence to the idea of it's existence let alone credit it for the creation of the universe?

...which is why there should be an investigation - I do not see how/why they would forbid that unless they were covering something up.

They shouldn't get involved with shit like that unless it was a matter of national security. Protecting one of their cronies reputations shouldn't be one of the times they can do that.

How is that even legal?

Reality rarely does! It seems to me that the religious types confuse their own numinous and wonder with a feeling of the presence of god. We all get blown away by the beauty and wonder of the world and the universe - it's natural.... but it isn't credible evidence for any god.... even if it was then which one? Have you actually read 'The God Delusion'?

It is evidence that it wasn't designed and that we all share fish ancestors. (lol - that sounds really silly - but we are talking hundreds of millions of years). I can't remember what their argument was exactly, but the emphasis was that it was not designed that way... and if it was then it was a stupid design. If it were designed, then why not put it straight across. . As I said - it was just one small piece in a chain of many evidences. Actually - I can play advocate to my own argument here with regard to the laryngeal nerve. There is 'some thinking' that coughing can help massage the heart during a mild heart attack and that people have claimed that they were kept alive by coughing hard and rhythmically which kept their heart beating. Maybe the nerve going right down under the heart physically tugs on the heart during a cough or a shout enough to move it in a way that can, in borderline cases, keep the heart going for a bit longer.... long enough to get through the attack or for an ambulance to arrive. How deeply this has been studied I do not know - I think there are mixed opinions as to the effectiveness of cardio massage via coughs. Even so - I found their case quite compelling.

I'll watch more of him... I actually like some of the arguments made by Christopher Hitchens too. I can see how they might rub some up the wrong way - but why pander to nonsense? If you think it is silly that a 'prophet' could 'fly to heaven on a winged horse' then why not say so. Why not challenge such backward thinking and call it out for what it is - fiction.... and acceptance of it is delusion. I spent decades reading stuff that was supposed to counter evolution.... there are many things that lead to the reversal in my thinking that it was not true. The 'straw that broke the camel's back' for me was when Dawkins cut open that giraffe showing the laryngeal nerve going from the brain right down under the heart then back up to the larynx. He compared it to a fish where it goes straight across. Something just clicked in me and I though 'ffs - I can't dispute this any more - all of these arguments against this are so poor and clutch at so many straws and are made by priests and people that know nothing about evolutionary biology' The field is huge and well studied and accepted. It is accepted for good reason - it works, it is demonstrated in nature, in DNA studies and the fossil record. Bring me one quote from 'The God Delusion' with any rebuttal from any book you have read or from your own mind. Pick the best one so I don't have to plough through a whole book of misunderstanding and twisted thinking. Pick the finest refutal you can find and post it here. Lets see it so we can discuss it.

... not in the vids I saw - every attack on Dawkins' book was worse than schoolboy error, misunderstanding of what he said, stuff taken out of context and just plain fiction - maybe it was a different book with a similar title. :-/ I like his down to earth no nonsense style. Maybe it is time to stop treading on the eggshells of the deluded and call out their imaginations for what they are - fictional delusions. I haven't studied Sagan in the same way - I used to be religious so avoided him as a trickster of the devil, lol. I found him a bit smarmy. I did look at some vids of him speaking a little while back though and couldn't really fault them. It is different as to what you pick up on and take in when you are on the other side of the discussion - I was for decades. Yea - basically he says there is no (or extremely poor) evidences for any of them, what ever definition put forward by any of the mainstream religions.

It isn't easy when it has been your whole life. I see how people double down and stick to their guns - I was the same (sorta).

I'll take a look... Although someone else told me to read it - I looked at some reviews and it had been laughed at over and over by critics as totally misunderstanding Dawkins and taking him out of context and even making stuff up at pretty much EVET turn in it. Dawkins does none of that - he presents science and discussion that seems very hard to disagree with. There was a you tube video that took on the points made in that book one by one and totally ridiculed them. Are you SURE you want me to read that book?

It is quite an old book... I read his (most recent?) book The God Delusion a year or two ago, shortly after changing my status from Christian to atheist. It quotes his previous books The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker several times. I enjoyed it and it seemed to flow pretty easily and laid out the 'god is a myth' argument pretty well - EVERY rebuttal I have seen of his books or of quotes from it have been total misunderstandings about what was written or of the science around it.... maybe innocently, but I fail to see how some can take what the man writes and skew it so badly. The God Delusion - get that one. So far nothing in it has been adequately challenged by anyone of any understanding.

In third world countries maybe... but in the west (UK anyway) the number that declare religious beliefs is dropping (as far as I know).

Yea - but you get cooks everywhere. A monk came up to me last week in Canterbury high street. He was French - he didn't look like a monk - he just had jeans and T-shirt. He said he was a Hare Krishna. We were having a fairly pleasant discussion (I have been wanting to talk to religious types since my conversion to atheism) and I was defending that we can know some things almost for certain, like gravity, it never fails or has never been shown to fail. We were actually having a good conversation until his mate popped up just blatently suggested that there was no such thing as gravity at all.... I ignored him, laughed and said to his friend that the guy was either joking or really dumb - he smiled and I walked off - I just didn't have the time, energy or the will to argue against a person that denies the very reality around him.