beecee

Yeah, I have heard that mentioned before. Which prompts the question...are we at the limits of our observational data and capabilities? How much more would we have been able to observe with the cancelled, much larger SSC or "Superconducting Super Collider" Could the construction of the SSC ever be recommenced?

On a more serious personal note: (1) Know yourself....Discover yourself....The truth will set you free. (2) Live for the moment. (3) Embrace discomfort before it overwhelms you. (4) Be kind, be assertive, be humble but not weak, be respectful to those that deserve it. (5) While life is an accident, it is also a gift; Live it to the fullest and the best according to your capabilities. Happiness and maintaining and adhering to a strict life philsophy, very rarely go hand in hand. I prefer happiness to following any particular brand of life philsophy. (something I read somewhere, sometime)

Life is an accident of evolution. To live, love and be happy, free from suffering and pain, as much as is humanly possible. I aim to live forever; so far I'm doing OK.

And you do an admirable job of that. Agreed...... Do you have any valid evidence to support that "drag it out of your arse, absolute statement"? Have you forgotten, Hitler was in WW1. How do you know he didn't kill anyone? C'mon dimmy, you make plenty of absolute claims, and cryptic nonsense, along with your rather funny cartoons, but never any real life, reputable link to support your claims.

Thought this may be appropriate for this (and probably others) thread......

Actually the irony is on you, as others have noted. ☺️ Of course you are, as you have just admitted. We were all innocent babies at one time, and near all of us have had our ups and downs, and most of us are man enough, and strong enough to not take the easy way out as you have. On me being wrong...of course I am wrong on many things, many times, as I openly admitted on this forum, instead of remaining silent as you have, or go all cryptic as you often do and as others have noted. But yes, I am certainly not wrong on the aspect of morality of saving a child or thousands of other innocents, that you would sacrifice for the sake of this weird unworkable philsophy you are obsessed with. Which raises a interesting thought...if we could time travel to the past, would it be morally acceptable to kill Hitler as a baby? Have you a mirror at home? Do you have any valid evidence to support that "drag it out of your arse, absolute statement"? Have you forgotten, Hitler was in WW1. How do you know he didn't kill anyone? C'mon dimmy, you make plenty of absolute claims, and cryptic nonsense, along with your rather funny cartoons, but never any real life, reputable link to support your claims. Yes, other ordinary people like you, who when the war ended, were captured, (if they had not taken the coward's way out and commited suicide) and most executed and/or jailed for a very long time...jails, you know, those things you want abolished...😏 Most of course were powerless and during those hard times between world wars, were not too concerned with his underlying philsophy...not that that can be seen as an excuse. Irrespective though, and back on track, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_torture Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote: "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility. or................... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15027570.2019.1627033?journalCode=smil20 ABSTRACT: Torture requires careful definition, because of the degree to which its definition often entails its moral condemnation. Torture involves the deliberate infliction of (intense) pain for coercive or punishment reasons. While emphasizing that the act of torture is indeed naturally seen as repulsive and ideally should not take place, I offer a non-utilitarian argument to ethically justify torture in specific kinds of interrogative cases. This argument closely examines the moral isomorphism between cases of immediate and delayed self-defense, showing that in both cases lethal force is justified. I further show that, once one’s life is forfeit, one’s other rights pertaining to the defense of one’s intended victims are likewise forfeit. As such, any form of interrogative torture necessary to procuring relevant information from persons involved in a lethal attack upon innocent persons is ethically justified. However, that an action is strictly ethically justified does not entail that it ought to be generally adopted. Several potent constitutional and sociological concerns are raised and considered. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Not sure why you (dimreeper) is trying to force your unworkable and generally debunked philsophy down my throat, but it isn't and won't work. I maintain as per the last abstract above as a valid and morally acceptable. Now dimpreeper would you like to tell me why maintaining your considerations for kidnappers, pedaphiles, terrorists, and criminals in general, should over-ride all avenues of saving innocent lives that could mount into the thousands. These same kidnappers, pedaphiles, terrorists, and criminals, have rejected all morally decent aspects of the society they belong to, and are threatening thousands of innocent lives. Will you answer that for me? Or will you as usual, ignore it and give us more irrelevant cartoons, and unworkable philsophical dogma, just so you can avoid admitting you are wrong.

I can only see this ending with the Russian people continuing such protests. IMO its up to his own people to bring this arsehole to heel and then trial him for war crimes.

Mine is Madam Maria Curie, as much for her back breaking work as for her dilligence, and discoveries. Other's that come to mind are Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey.

Even if you have been stabbed in the process of rescuing a little girl being raped. 🤮 "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it." Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione (or even a pretend philosopher 😅) I know how it works, and I know how you work with your pretentious "feel good" unworkable philosophy. Media coverage???...remember telling lies makes little baby Jesus cry. 😉 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_torture Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote: "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of respons. encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford. 4 The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture "We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: My knowledge of you and your silly unworkable philosophy is that you would probably sympathise with Putin and make some excuse re hard times etc, just as you did for Hitler. When you show me evidence that you have anything at all going for your unworkable position, then I will look at it.Evidence? 😄 All I'm hearing is what if's, but maybe, and of course your never ending sympathies towards the criminals, terrorists, kidnappers, rather then the victims. I truly doubt any reasonable society would support your nonsense, and obviously that's why we still have jails, and always will. Of course its not the answer I expected. You prefer to hide your opinion/feelings behind your usual philsophical jargon, because it would probably create a furore. Your true feelings are highlighted above. My feelings on Putin are of course more aligned with reality, and as I have at least expressed in an appropriate thread. Hitler didn't kill anyone??? I'm certainly not going where you dragged that doozy from! Irrespective, Hitler of course was amongst the world's most revilled dictators, in the same ilk as Idi Amin, and Ghadaffi, and was the instigator of WW2 and the holocaust. It is down in print what I think of Hitler and Putin. I havn't seen too much from you, other then excuses, excuses, and more excuses.

That just about sums it up.

That's because you basically havn't a case to put. We certainly can know for certain a person's guilt, as I have explained and detailed. And even if we couldn't know for 100% certain, (which we can) beyond any reasonable doubt suffices, your rather "soft" philosophical objections not withstanding. The following again from the encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford. 4 The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture "We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture". More to the point, it's you attempting to push again, your essentially unworkable and mythical passive nonsense. I was going to ask you your thoughts on Putin, but I already know the answer to that one, after you volunteered your thoughts on Hitler in that other thread.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_torture Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote: "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility".

I've been witnessed to a UFO. While it gave me a thought filled, sleepness night, my imagination remained within reason, and I dismissed it as some sort of atmopsheric phenomena or light trickery, rather then some big eyed, pale skinned Alien pilot driven craft. 😉 I tend to reject labels, and simply accept the logic and viability of science and the scientific method. Reminds me of the line from the movie contact, when Ellie meets the Alien species in the guise of her Father......."You're an interesting species. An interesting mix. You're capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you're not. See, in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable, is each other'.

I've been saying words to that effect for yonks. That's why our ancestors imagined Gods in rivers, mountains, the Sun, Moon etc. It could be termed rational in the face of the lack of scientific knowledge. Of course now days, science has pushed the rational need for gods/afterlife into near oblivion, although that inbred fear of the finality of death, still holds sway over many.

But Ukrain did not invade and bomb the shit out of Russia! Just to make it clear, I actually agree totally with

A nice article here that might help explain things. Certainly though, after what has transpired, there maybe now some action afoot...... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-13/curious-nc-lismore-built-on-a-floodplain/9252362 extract: Lismore sits in a valley where a number of creeks and smaller rivers join the Wilsons River. Gilbert Laurie is a descendant of Lismore's Widjabul people and the nearby Yaegl people. "We used to call Lismore area Dundarimbah", Mr Laurie said. "Dundarimbah means swampland in our language. So yeah they built Lismore on a swamp, which is a bit sad." The first to settle on the banks of Wilsons River were squatters who travelled down from the New England tableland so that they could access a river to get their wool out to the coast. The next wave were the cedar cutters who used rivers up and down the east coast of Australia to float their logs down to the boats to export the wood overseas. Lismore is at the head of navigation on Wilsons River where 1,000-tonne ships could dock and turn around. The shanty town of farmworkers and cedar-cutters quickly expanded. Ted Trudgeon, Lismore museum coordinator and custodian, explained "there was a big flood in 1857 before the town really started to develop". "The biggest flood of the time was in 1870, so everybody knew about the floods. "They estimate that there were floods back in this period that were over 12 metres — but they remained and the town developed and grew." Here's another article after the 2017 floods....... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-19/how-lismore-has-adapted-to-life-on-a-flood-plain/8443098?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment Aidan Ricketts lives in one of the lowest lying parts of North Lismore. His home of 30 years sits on steel posts that let the water rush through rather than resist it. "It doesn't go into the house, but I can get up to five metres underneath the house in a flood like the other day," he said. "I always stay. I never feel unsafe."

Totally agree with that summation. How the hell, can people believe that it is the democratic western nations that are indulging in fake news ( a terminology that forever will keep the name of Trump alive) and lies and misinformation? Sometimes I really wish I could block politics totally out of my mind...politics and religion! two areas where people can twist, turn and alter the facts to reflect and protect their inner biases and beliefs.

Yeah, like I said, everything else is changing with the shinkage model: With expansion we are only speaking of spacetime. But we have evidence for these things, and occam'srazor appears the simplest explanation. Inflation explains isotropy and inhomogeneities: DM is evident in the bullet cluster anomlay and general rotational curves: DE was invoked due to observational data re type 1a supernova and WMAP. They are needed and observed add on's and obviously (with DE) exactly opposite to what would normally be expected.

I propose Occam's razor. We have the evidenced based accepted theory of the BB and spacetime expansion, with everything else being fixed, v's a shrinking model where everything is changing, including the constant nature of "c".

Your problem is "fence sitting" and trying to be pretentiously philsophical, with argument for argument sake, considering you have said you would consider it yourself. I also have far more belief in the law and authority, in getting what is required, then simply creating what if and what about scenarios. The criminal, the kidnapper, the terrorist, has set his own bacement moral levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_torture Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote: "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility".

https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=usflawreview Not Enough Official Torture in the World? The Circumstances in Which Torture Is Morally Justifiable: RECENT EVENTS stemming from the "war on terrorism" have highlighted the prevalence of torture, both as an interrogation technique and as a punitive measure. 1 Torture is almost universally deplored. It is prohibited by international law and is not officially sanctioned by the domestic laws of any state. 2 The formal prohibition against torture is absolute-there are no exceptions to it. This is not only pragmatically unrealistic, but unsound at a normative level. Despite the absolute ban on torture, it is widely used. Contrary to common belief, torture is not the preserve of despot military regimes in third world nations. For example, there are serious concerns regarding the treatment by the United States of senior Al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammad. 3 There is also irrefutable evidence that the United States tortured large numbers of Iraqi prisoners, as well as strong evidence that it tortured prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, where suspected Al Qaeda terrorists are held.4 More generally Professor Alan Dershowitz has noted, "[C] ountries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords [prohibiting torture]. They do it secretly and hypothetically, the way the French did it in Algeria. 5 extract: "The Circumstances in Which Torture Is Acceptable The only situation where torture is justifiable is where it is used as an information gathering technique to avert a grave risk. In such circumstances, there are five variables relevant in determining whether torture is permissible and the degree of torture that is appropriate. The variables are (1) the number of lives at risk; (2) the immediacy of the harm; (3) the availability of other means to acquire the information; (4) the level of wrongdoing of the agent; and (5) the likelihood that the agent actually does possess the relevant information. Where (1), (2), (4) and (5) rate highly and (3) is low, all forms of harm may be inflicted on the agent-even if this results in death". Conclusion: The absolute prohibition against torture is morally unsound and pragmatically unworkable. There is a need for measured discussion regarding the merits of torture as an information gathering device. This would result in the legal use of torture in circumstances where there are a large number of lives at risk in the immediate future and there is no other means of alleviating the threat. While none of the recent high profile cases of torture appear to satisfy these criteria, it is likely that circumstances will arise in the future where torture is legitimate and desirable. A legal framework should be established to properly accommodate these situations.

Light has no rest mass, but then again, it is never at rest. And yes light/photons do actually warp spacetime ever so slightlydue to momentum. Gravity of course is spacetime warpage/geometry. Light also travels in geodesics in curved/warped spacetime. eg: gravitational lensing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_torture Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote: https://ala-choice.libguides.com/c.php?g=771995&p=5537297 One of the most well-known proponents of this position is lawyer Alan Dershowitz. In Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge, he argues that because terrorism is a particular kind of threat, it requires a particular kind of response. He believes that torture can be effective, and that there are circumstances, like the TTB, when it should be utilized. So that torture does not become a widespread, unregulated practice, Dershowitz proposes the use of torture warrants, by which interrogators would first have to demonstrate its necessity to a judge. Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke make a similar argument in Torture: When the Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible, claiming that an absolute ban on torture is unrealistic because there can be no absolutes. Instead, a utilitarian perspective must be employed to deliberate the use of torture that considers the number of lives at risk, how soon the harm to those lives will take place, and if other avenues for acquiring information are realistic. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Your speaking in circles. The fact is getting the desired results or not, does not invalidate the morally correct decision in trying all avenues open including torture that you have agreed to. Of course you can be certain. Check out the justice/punishment thread and the low life that was caught raping the little girl and stabbed one of her rescuers...and of course in either of the terrorist or the kidnapper, circumstances can certainly point to 100% guilty. eg: openly and defiantly admitting to the crimes, trying to goad the authorities to solve. I won't raise the Stanford Philosophy encyclopedia reference again. So? You yourself have already agreed you would still consider it. Certainty of guilt, beyond reasonable doubt are good enough for me, considering what is at stake. A shame it, (real ife) isn't as scripted as you and dimmy appear to be. 🙄 Understandable in many respects why respectable scientists have been so cynical of philosophy of late.

Yes, the morally correct solution for using torture. Yep I certainly did, but in answer to the following..... Nothing carefully scripted about it at all and a disitnct possibility. The following again from the encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford. 4 The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture "We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture". (1) Nothing carefully scripted about it at all, as your cynical reply infers. (2) The guilt is established sometimes 100%, other times beyond all reasonable doubt. (3) No silly inferred shortcut at all, simply the only alternative left, as dictated by the criminal/terrorist himself in refusing to divulge the info under normal enducements, like a cuppa tea and a biscuit. (4) the "looking for the desired result" is the morally correct way to go. Why do you appear to be questioning that, when you yourself have admitted it deserves consideration? You appear to be arguing simply for arguments sake?