Iggy

Yeah, I know. You can't say "I have faith in god" and you can't say "i have no faith in any god". As mutually exclusive as those two propositions are, something about your makeup precludes you from claiming either. Your indecisiveness i guess. Let's just agree that while you can't say "I believe in no kind of god" you will *STOP* calling yourself an atheist. Please, please, oh, dear god, please, STOP doing that!!! If you can't say that you don't believe in God then you damn well better stop calling yourself atheist. OK? Stop it!

Yeah, Yeah, forward the light brigade... their's is not the reason why, but to do and die. I know the poem, and I notice you didn't lose the qualifier "imaginary". Right. I'm pretty sure you just said "I am arguing for the real "actual" components of our conscience in an afterlife" Maybe you don't see how that can be confusing, but it can be. Just do me the favor of saying "when a person dies they have no more consciousness, and I believe there is no God of any kind". You've already called yourself an atheist in this thread a number of times, but I don't think you can say that. I don't think you can clear up the muddied waters you've made. But I welcome you to do it. I'd be no more pleased than if you just repeated what I just said followed by an exclamation point and a grin. Brothers in arms we would then be. Sky pixies. Anthropomorphic gods. I see where you're going. I'm going to stop reading. You aren't losing the qualifiers. You're denying sky pixies! Any religious person can do that!

Well... he realized his family, friends, and country couldn't help him so he took matters into his own hands. I don't see how that translates into what you're saying. Maybe you're not quite carrying your point. Sure, but earlier you equated faith in God to faith in "personal resilience, patience and fortitude". This person sure had plenty of resilience and fortitude. You also earlier said you don't believe in an anthropomorphic God. Now you say a person doesn't need an imaginary God. Let's just lose the qualifiers. Does anyone need a god (or anything like a god) to accomplish something of value? It's a very simple question that could, perhaps, deserve a yes / no answer.

No, they didn't. It's disrespectful to say that. They did nothing to bring that plane down. Apparently, himself. He didn't pray for God to intercede. He didn't beg for mercy. He took his life in his own hands and fought for it. edit: sorry, John. You beat me to all that

The intensity of solar radiation decreases with the square of the distance. You can transmit power wirelessly (the preferred method is via microwaves). I'm not sure about electrical output vs. intensity. What is it you're thinking? What is it you would propose?

I was stumbling around this thread, and I bumped into this gem. I have to say, Tar -- you couldn't have described your affection for God more purely, or perfectly, or honestly than you just did. Your belief in God, and your excuses for anything religious, have nothing to do with God. They have everything to do with your need for one. Very self-aware, that was. Bravo, Carry on...

There is no doubt that it formed in an area of low metallicity. The age doesn't just come from the metallicity though. The metallicity and mass let you predict what line the star should follow on an HR diagram. Where exactly it is on that line (determined by its brightness and color) then says how old it is. edit: in theory ;-)

The star that went supernova was, and the supernova remnant is, moving directly away from us. "11 billion lightyears" can actually mean more than one thing. Let's assume that you mean that the supernova happened 11 billion years ago. That makes 11 billion lightyears a "light travel time distance" (this gets very complicated very quick) The redshift that we would observe is z = 2.5 This makes the scale factor 1/3.5 and the current distance to the supernova remnant 19.293 billion lightyears. When the supernova happened the distance was 1/3.5 of that. In other words: The distance was 5.512 billion lightyears when the supernova happened 11 billion years ago and the distance is currently 19.293 billion lightyears. The universe has expanded 3.5 times over in those 11 billion years. All cosmic distances have increased by a factor of 3.5 in that time. Does that work?

You can't say "I am viewing the same territory" because perception always intercedes between reality and you. You don't view the territory. Ever. In any way. If you describe a useful element of your map with the same language someone else describes an element of their map then at best you can conclude: Your maps have structure analogous to the territory. Everyone on earth can have the same element on their map, but we are still all bound by the principle that I quoted in my last post: An element that everyone on earth has in their worldview, that is very useful, is at best presumed to have a good degree of similarity with (or to be a good analogy of) the territory. You can't say "it is true of the territory". Like I just quoted "It is not possible to find out when a map is correct" You don't view the territory and nothing you can accomplish allows you, or any group of people, to conclude that you know the territory. It is that cut and dry. That is the whole point of the map / territory relationship. EDIT: Besides that small caveat, the rest of your post is quite agreeable and I'm sure we can put this behind us. By the way, I think you're right, Kant had a lot of good things to say on this topic.

It would make about a third of a liter of gas at STP for whatever that is worth. I don't really know how dangerous HCl is. I guess I wouldn't want to be in a room with that much. Are you bubbling it through water? Have you considered buying Muriatic Acid acid at the hardware store, or online?

Is the big bang a black hole? -- Physics FAQ That faq was written in '97 before the discovery of the acceleration of expansion

The only means by which you can understand the territory is with a map. That is *literally* the whole point of the map / territory relationship. No person ever has any access to the territory except via a map. Some maps work. Some don't. Some are more useful than others. Etc. You can't say that you "view the territory" or that you "understand the territory". Literally, the whole point, the one and only rule, is that such a thing is not possible. Just google the map territory relationship edit... let me quote a couple things to help... wikipedia -- map / territory relation General Semantics The three bolded sentences above should be enough

The essence of the map / territory relationship is that you can't view the territory. It is impossible. That is rule #1 of the whole idea. Korzybski. General Semantics. Google. Oh, no, you aren't passive aggressively going to put this on me. I said nothing to insinuate that you are too stupid to understand anything. The fact remains, you just said "Krauss claims to be the first to know how the universe will end" which positively means you don't know at all what Krauss claims nor what standard cosmology entails. I'm not responsible for that fact. Science is reproducible, falsifiable, and subject to peer review. If you want to acquaint yourself with the field of cosmology then do it. If you want to acquaint yourself with the scientific work of Lawrence Krauss then do it. Until then maybe consider not spreading misinformation about him and trying to trash him on the basis of that misinformation. I'll leave the question of your motivation unanswered and say nothing more on the topic.

No, Mr. Tar. Reality isn't a democracy. Majority opinions do not Gods make. Yeah, I really don't think so. It's 85 billion That's a very aggravating thing to say. Like a quadriplegic calling a Jedi a wimp. 1) Krauss doesn't claim that the universe will ever end (the standard model predicts it will expand indefinitely) 2) He isn't the only cosmologist to support the standard model. The vast majority of cosmologist do. 3) Krauss wasn't the first to solve it. He was just somebody who happened to be trying to explain it to you. 4) Relativistic cosmology is one of the greatest purely scientific achievements of the 20th century. It has a purely theoretical foundation from which it makes a fantastic number of subsequently confirmed predictions about density, redshift, brightness, element abundance, age of stars, angular size, surface brightness, etc. You have no business calling it an illusion. 5)... He showed somebody an equation? Alexander Friedmann discovered the equation in the 1920's. 3 other cosmologists (not Krauss) measured the last parameter needed to numerically run the model in 1998 (for which, of course, they won a Nobel prize). I was in your thread on this subject. You misunderstood a 30 second snippet of an hour long popularization of science talk that Krauss gave and you couldn't give it up. There were 20 people (all more educated on the topic than you) telling you every which way that you had made an error -- that your perspective was mistaken. You bend over backwards with a mind so open your brains might fall out at the mere mention of God -- forgiving the religious of *anything* -- excusing them of *everything*. But, there is Krauss on youtube -- a real scientist who has done good work as a scientist -- and he is doing his best to explain the current state of cosmology to people who might not be familiar with it (in a very friendly and self-effacing manner I might add), and the very sight of it has apparently offended you beyond telling. You're still talking about it, carrying it around with you into other threads. What is that, Tar? How can you explain that?

Sorry, I was delayed getting back here. The meanings can be related, but not "equated". If the various meanings of a spelling are equal then they aren't various, are they. The name for the type of homonym whose definitions are related is a polyseme. Right, that's a polyseme. An example of a normal homonym without related meanings is "bark" (as in the dog and the tree). All beside the point, I'm sure. The Deist position is that God does not intervene in natural affairs. Their ontology is 100% atheist. That is to say, the only model they have of the natural world is the natural model. They don't mix science and God so... not the best example for the topic's question. You can assume that an illusion has merit, but it doesn't make it so. The bible perfectly describes God. Hashem (if not perfectly pronounced) is perfectly described in the Torah. Allah is so completely described in the Quran that you better not draw a picture of him. No postscripts allowed. The reason theism is unscientific is because there is an assumed foundation of truth. The truth is already known (and written down as well). That doesn't mix with science because science is always open to revision. If you want to assume that there is truth out there that we don't yet know and don't have the language to describe, that's fine. That is scientific. It is *not* theism. Hence, all your equivocating. Does Biocentrism make a new testable prediction about God? I probably should have asked first, does it make any new testable predictions?

I read your OP closer and noticed... It looks like we were on the same page when you said "I forgot to consider that in the second experiment, in E's frame the 'last clock tick before instant acceleration' and "first clock tick after accel' are essentially simultaneous, but they're not simultaneous in R's frame." You had it. I was playing catch up I think you're right. If the box doesn't drag everything inside it then everything would maybe have a different coordinate acceleration from the box's perspective but their proper acceleration would be the same. The frame dragging... yeah... Einstein did consider the twin paradox in those terms... Here it is. The twin paradox part starts down near the diagram. If I remember right, it was translated from German and written as a dialog between two people, so hard to follow, but it is quite near what you're talking about.

No, Tar. What I said is that you can't use "school Spirit" to inform the topic "can you mix science with God". It is called an equivocation fallacy... using one definition of a word or phrase to imply support for a different definition of the same word or phrase. I'm sorry to say, but your writing style (at least on the topic of religion) is so filled with equivocation that it's obvious you're doing it purposefully, like maybe you think it's clever. If you took debate in the school you mentioned then you'll remember the teacher, the moderator, your opponent, and even your own teammates would all simultaneously stop you each time you started to sound like you might be thinking about planning to equivocate. It doesn't elevate -- it degrades -- a discussion. Allow me to give you an example. Here is the issue: now... a random sentence from your post, We are trying to answer the question "Can science mix with God?" If you look "spirit" up at wiktionary and fill in the different definitions of the word you first get: That means the answer to "Can science mix with god?" is no. Next definition... So now we've implied absolutely nothing to the question "Can science mix with god?" The equivocation has given two different answers to the thread's title. Not terribly useful unless one works in politics and is constantly trying to please two groups of people. The only result of intentionally equivocating is to muddy the waters and make questions impossible to answer... as you see yourself: It means that if you equivocate, dissemble, and obfuscate enough then you could speak on exactly that topic indefinitely and nobody would be able to answer the question.

Have you considered the shift in the plane of simultaneity? When E jumps to catch up to R, the clocks on R (from E's perspective) skip ahead. They wouldn't see them skip ahead, but they would calculate while they're on earth that the clock on R at the present instant is one thing, then after they jump to catch up they would calculate that the clock on R at the present instant is suddenly quite a bit further along. The shift in simultaneity would work just like the normal twin paradox. Let me quote wiki or something because I don't think I'm explaining well at all... When E jumps to catch up to R in your version you'd get the same thing. E's plane of simultaneity would instantly sweep over a large part of R's world line. So, you couldn't... if you're calculating the proper time of R from E's perspective you can't just say that R first has one relative velocity then another and add the two time dilated results together. You also have to add a third bit of time corresponding to the shift in simultaneity.

The wikipedia article on thermal conduction confirms that and puts it well, Since the material is paraffin-based it probably would be semi-transparent, and so like wiki says, more phenomenologically sensible.

I agree. Like I said in the preceding paragraph, "If you want to mix science and God then find a scientific law, theory, or formula that relies on, or contains, God." I wasn't implying that would be impossible. I mean to say that would do it. However, "science" is not the same as the "scientific method". Science is the knowledge and the scientific method is the process by which the knowledge is obtained. The thing you quoted of me says that the scientific method is incompatible with divine revelation. They are mutually exclusive -- polar opposite methods of obtaining information. This does not, as you say, imply that science has refuted or could refute the existence of a creator. The scientific method, in fact, is incapable of refuting the existence of a creator just as it is incapable of refuting the existence of a perpetual motion machine.

I can't tell if you're responding to my last post or what you're trying to imply. I haven't forgotten where we are and what we are doing. Being in a place that allows for the rational discussion of the foundations of religion does not prevent one from having a straightforward opinion on the thread's topic -- or solving it logically. I still don't get what you're responding to or implying. Nothing that I've asked or said, and nothing about the OP's question, requires you to (I feel silly just saying this) incorporate every idea that you have ever read and consider every theory proposed by every human that has ever existed. Edit: I get it. I didn't notice the double negative. You're saying that you must incorporate and entertain other people's ideas. That goes without saying. You must have been responding to my comment about there being a lot of good people from a long tradition that make fine company. It would be impossible not to incorporate and consider things you've read and heard into your reasoning and conclusions. I don't understand your need to affirm that no man is an island, but true enough, it is true. Ok, consider what I said earlier. "the sort of mixing I see between god and science is just to mistake one for the other". You say that you want to 'frame religious ideas in scientific terms'. What that ends up being is pure equivocation -- to make scientific facts sound religious, and using religious words and ideas in a scientific context where they don't, by definition, belong. It confuses the issue rather than illuminate it. Let me read and quote your 'manifesto' portion that I ungracefully skipped so maybe you'll see what I mean, Life emerged on Earth when probable chemical combinations, similar in kind to the growth of crystals, responding to the ebbs and flow of heating and cooling caused by the sun's absence and presence as the Earth turned, and the tossing of the seas by the wind and weather and pull of the moon, caused various bubbles and collections of certian combinations of chemicals to clump and associate, and retain the energy of the Sun for a time, in a pattern that was repeated the next day. In sync with the cycles of the enviroment and the shape of the pools and crevices of the Earth, regular, repeating patterns formed and certain characteristics of density, and chemical compostion emerged, urged by the environmental effects of the crystal concentrations below and the regular cycles of movement and energy above. What was, one day, created the possibilities for the next day, and certain arrangements, certain patterns with discernable characterisics, took hold, and established themselves, and found a way to continue the pattern, to leave a seed, a start, for the same form to emerge again and grow into the same pattern, with the same characteristics, the same shape, the same basic relationships and compositions as was before, with slight variations as the environment changed its character, and chemical combinations were accumulated or dispersed. What fit, fit again, what did not fit did not occur. Life emerged and grabbed form and structure and stored energy, and passed the pattern onto the next generation in a universe otherwise tending toward entropy. And so we continue our own pattern and use the seed, given to us by our parents to grow into the pattern that we are, that fits with our environment, and we pass that pattern on, to the next generation. We are alive, and conscious of it. Not only our own pattern, but the environment that our form fits. We each are the mold, the molded, and the molder. And such is conscious human life, in and of reality. Exactly fitting, yet a unique pattern, with a life of its own. What we make of it, who or what we associate with, love and protect, maintain, and promote, and who or what we separate ourselves from, hate, destroy, consume, eliminate or use to our advantage, depends a lot on what works, to survive, and carry on the pattern, that we call our own. In what sense did you address, or even mention, religion or God with that? It is written in the style of a religious myth, but in reality everything you just said is 100% irreligious and unrelated to the concept of God. It does nothing to answer the question "can you mix science with God", and worse, it obfuscates it. No, it is not a coincidence. It is your active effort to equivocate that accomplished that. If you wanted to clearly say "god and science can mix because a metaphor of natural selection can be worded in such a way that it might remind a person of the trinity" then you would have the courage of your clear and unhidden convictions. By "spirit" I assume you mean "a supernatural element given by God and present in the body which can be validated with science" otherwise the word is equivocated and conflated because it doesn't address the thread's title question, but implies that it does thereby obfuscating the issue, and running the risk of suggesting the author means to dissemble... if you know what I mean. If you want to mix science and God then find a scientific law, theory, or formula that relies on, or contains, God. Otherwise, find a divine source of revelation that predicts the charge of an electron, and the orbit of mars, and other empirical matters the way that scientific laws, theories, and formula do. The truth is that the scientific method with its empirical investigation are at their core and by definition incompatible with divine revelation. They simply do not mix because they are mutually exclusive.

How very brave. Oh, yes! You've got all kinds of company there. Good people, all of them. They're waiting for you. Claim the title and run to them already! No, I've read your manifesto many times at this point. I could recite it from memory. I'm not going to read it again. Seriously, Tar. I'm not playing. Pantheism is a fine tradition. It started with Spinoza, who was brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. The tradition continues and it takes nothing away from you to say you believe it. You obviously don't lack a belief in god, and that's fine. But, doing that and calling yourself atheist is just weird. You can't imagine how much more I would respect you if you just planted that flag somewhere.

You've been denied. Sorry to be so harsh, but the secret meetings are off limits to the likes of you. You have to disbelieve and you have to *stop arguing for*. It's the last part you got wrong. Sorry if you didn't understand the rules. You are not an atheist! I am very sorry to have to give you the news. No, I know. This is why I keep calling you a pantheist. I think I've used that word like four or five times talking to you. I keep throwing it out there hoping you'll grab onto it and say "Yes, I am a pantheist". I keep doing that because I want you to argue for something. I want you to say something from the heart. Stop pretending. But, you've made clear you wont. Maybe your sister and your dad were atheists. Maybe that part of your story was true. But, the part you tell about yourself is unconvincing. Nobody is fooled. I've tried to extract any kind of atheistic sentiment from you by force and at every turn you've kicked and screamed about it. I'm sorry. You never had a pass. Therefore there is no need to revoke it. You are no atheist. I'm sorry you convinced yourself otherwise.

Yes, it most certainly is. Ok. Fine. I'll stop trying to convince you of your own beliefs. You are no kind of atheist. There is no stripe or banner that you share with one. In fact, I have just one request of you, please stop calling yourself an "atheist". Please stop using that word to describe yourself altogether. Please, from the bottom of my heart, please! STOP! I said earlier "you are trying to smuggle something across boarders and I'm determined to discover it". Well... I figured out what it is. It is you. You are calling yourself atheist and jumping across fences to do it when you have no business even trying that. Please get back to your side of the argument and do your best to make it from there.

That's an ok story. You threw the Phoenix in there and some north Koreans... Ok stuff. Ok fiction. When I read you I expect some kind of fiction and that wasn't all that bad. It would, though, if you don't mind me giv9ing you some pointers... here is some real fiction on the topic... Dr. Braun wanted nothing more than to stop all this. For what came of it? One after another you gave over your dying. One by one they went. You went. Childhood, family, friendship, love were stifled in the grave. And these tears! When you wept them from the heart, you felt you justified something, understood something. But what did you understand? Again, nothing! It was only an intimation of understanding. A promise that mankind might might, mind you eventually, through its gift which might might again! be a divine gift, comprehend why it lived. Why life, why death. And again, why these particular forms these Isaacs and these Tinas? When Dr. Braun closed his eyes, he saw, red on black, something like molecular processes the only true heraldry of being. As later, in the close black darkness as the short day ended, he went to the dark kitchen window to have a look at the stars. These things cast outward by a great begetting spasm billions of years ago. Now there is a little ending of a little short story from which you can draw some inspiration for your fiction. Or... If that doesn't do it...if that is a bit intellectual, here is someone else to channel, You'll have to find a computer with the sound working for that. Sorry otherwise. But, besides all this fiction nonsense, I do have a question, Can you pick the four least convincing words out of that sentence? (Hint: it has nothing to do with you referring to yourself in the third person)?