Quarter-mile-wide asteroid coming close to Earth

Nov 05, 2011 By MARCIA DUNN , AP Aerospace Writer
Quarter-mile-wide asteroid coming close to Earth (AP)
This image made from radar data taken in April 2010 by the Arecibo Radar Telescope in Puerto Rico and provided by NASA/Cornell/Arecibo shows asteroid 2005 YU55. The asteroid, bigger than an aircraft carrier, will dart between the Earth and moon Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2011 - the closest encounter by such a huge rock in 35 years. But scientists say not to worry. It won't hit. (AP Photo/NASA/Cornell/Arecibo)

(AP) -- An asteroid bigger than an aircraft carrier will dart between the Earth and moon on Tuesday - the closest encounter by such a huge rock in 35 years.

But scientists say not to worry. It won't hit.

"We're extremely confident, 100 percent confident, that this is not a threat," said the manager of NASA's Near Object Program, Don Yeomans. "But it is an opportunity."

The asteroid named 2005 YU55 is being watched by ground antennas as it approaches from the direction of the sun. The last time it came within so-called shouting distance was 200 years ago.

Closest approach will occur at 6:28 p.m. EST Tuesday when the asteroid passes within 202,000 miles of Earth. That's closer than the roughly 240,000 miles between the Earth and the moon.

The moon will be just under 150,000 miles from the asteroid at the time of closest approach.

Both the Earth and moon are safe - "this time," said Jay Melosh, professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences at Purdue University.

If 2005 YU55 were to plow into the home planet, it would blast out a crater four miles across and 1,700 feet deep, according to Melosh's calculations. Think a magnitude-7 earthquake and 70-foot-high .

Scientists have been tracking the slowly spinning, spherical, dark-colored object since its discovery in 2005, and are positive it won't do any damage.

"We know the of this object very well," Yeomans said.

The asteroid stretches a quarter-mile across. Smaller objects come close all the time, Yeomans noted, but nothing this big will have ventured so close since 1976. And nothing this large will again until 2028.

from California and Puerto Rico will help scientists ascertain whether the asteroid is pockmarked with craters and holds any water-bearing minerals or even frozen water.

would need a 6-inch-or-bigger telescope and know exactly where to look to spot it.

Astronomers consider 2005 YU55 a C-type asteroid - one containing carbon-based materials. "It's not just a whirling rock like most of them," Yeomans said.

Such objects are believed to have brought carbon-based materials and water to the early Earth, planting the seeds for life. The discovery of water-bearing minerals or ice would support that theory, Yeomans said.

This is the type of asteroid that NASA would want to aim for, with astronauts, Yeomans said, especially if frozen water is found. Such asteroids could serve as watering holes and fueling stations for future explorers, he said.

An asteroid is actually on NASA's short list for destinations.

President Barack Obama wants astronauts headed to an asteroid and then Mars in the coming decades. That's why the 30-year space shuttle program ceased this summer - so could have enough money to get cracking on these new destinations.

As for an actual strike by an asteroid this size, that's estimated to occur once every 100,000 years or so.

An named Apophis - estimated to be 885 feet across - will venture extremely close on April 13, 2029 - but will not strike. It has a remote chance of hitting Earth when it comes around again on April 13, 2036.

Scientists said information gleaned from 2005 YU55, as well as other asteroids, will prove useful if and when it becomes necessary to deflect an incoming Armageddon-style rock.

Explore further: After early troubles, all go for Milky Way telescope

4.6 /5 (22 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Rare near-Earth asteroid fly-by set for Tuesday

Nov 03, 2011

A massive asteroid will make a rare fly-by Tuesday, and although it poses no danger of crashing to Earth, US scientists said this week they are looking forward to getting a closer look.

NASA in final preparations for Nov. 8 asteroid flyby

Oct 27, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- NASA scientists will be tracking asteroid 2005 YU55 with antennas of the agency's Deep Space Network at Goldstone, Calif., as the space rock safely flies past Earth slightly closer than the ...

Asteroid to Make Rare Close Flyby of Earth

Jan 24, 2008

Scientists are monitoring the orbit of asteroid 2007 TU24. The asteroid, believed to be between 150 meters (500 feet) and 610 meters (2,000 feet) in size, is expected to fly past Earth on Jan. 29, with its ...

Spacecraft Earth to perform asteroid 'flyby' this fall

May 03, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Since the dawn of the space age, humanity has sent 16 robotic emissaries to fly by some of the solar system's most intriguing and nomadic occupants -- comets and asteroids. The data and imagery ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 225

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

katesisco
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2011
the asteroid itself is different from a charged body as in W Thornhills electric universe. He says there would not be contact as the charges would make contact above the Earth. I would like to see some projections as to that scenario.
I_Am_God
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2011
Is it possible that the asteroid can get stuck around earth and become another moon?
horve
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
Is it possible that the asteroid can get stuck around earth and become another moon?


NO.
Nerdyguy
3.9 / 5 (19) Nov 05, 2011
Is it possible that the asteroid can get stuck around earth and become another moon?


NO.


Just goes to show you....religion and science really shouldn't mix.
JaySeattle
4.9 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
No, unless something slows the asteroid down. A collision with a nother asteroid while it is near the earth could do it. Capturing an asteroid in earth orbit would be a neat way to create a permanent space station, with all the building material and radiation shielding one could want.
dwickizer
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 05, 2011

Just goes to show you....religion and science really shouldn't mix.


Nerdyguy, how do you leap to that conclusion? Seems to me IF God exists, and IF he created the universe and also directed the writing of the Bible, then the two would not contradict one another. Furthermore, cosmology clearly shows that the universe had a beginning 13.73 billion years ago. The Bible also states that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, the universe must have had a cause outside of itself. Something not made of matter, something outside of time and space, something VERY powerful. The Bible said that uncaused cause was God. So, science and the Bible do not appear to be at odds. Neither should a biblically based religion be at odds with science. In fact, classical scientists who were Christians, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, etc., thought that by studying the creation using science, one could learn more about the Creator. They certainly didn't hold your view.
ubavontuba
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2011
Why is it so remarkably round?
CHollman82
2.4 / 5 (31) Nov 05, 2011
Furthermore, cosmology clearly shows that the universe had a beginning 13.73 billion years ago.


Depends on what you mean by the word "universe"... If you mean that word to encompass all of existence then no cosmology does not show that. If you mean it to encompass all that we can detect then sure... The "big bang" (I hate that term, it's a misnomer at best) serves to occlude information that came before it. No information traversed that event, that doesn't mean there was nothing before it. Just as it is assumed that no information survives a black hole.
CHollman82
2.4 / 5 (37) Nov 05, 2011
Therefore, the universe must have had a cause outside of itself. Something not made of matter, something outside of time and space


Unfounded assumptions... irrational assumptions even. You are assuming the concept of "origin" is even meaningful outside of human conceptualization. As far as we know matter/energy does not have an origin. According to the first law of thermodynamics it does not, and we have NEVER witnessed the "origin" of anything.

The Bible said that uncaused cause was God.


Yes and this is fucking stupid. If god is a "thing" than it too must have had a cause if you insist everything else did.

So, science and the Bible do not appear to be at odds.


Science and religion are at odds like oil and water... You don't know enough about science to understand why, and you convince yourself that scientific understanding happily holds hands with religious beliefs when it does not, at all.
hush1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2011
Yes. And if the universe creates such near by visitors, pay tribute to their visit - every close call visitor gets a satellite from us. The perfect calling card if they are on the path of no return.

And we will do the same. And look for 'artificial' satellites posted on their respective journeys from primitive life called humans.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (24) Nov 05, 2011
Yes. And if the universe creates such near by visitors, pay tribute to their visit - every close call visitor gets a satellite from us. The perfect calling card if they are on the path of no return.

And we will do the same. And look for 'artificial' satellites posted on their respective journeys from primitive life called humans.


You're such a weirdo, I rarely have any idea what you're talking about. That's not necessarily meant to be taken as an insult...
Burnerjack
1 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2011
Does this mean I don't have to start shopping for the holidays?
bluehigh
2.2 / 5 (20) Nov 05, 2011
Just as it is assumed that no information survives a black hole.
- CHollman

As evidenced by the black hole between your ears.

As far as we know matter/energy does not have an origin.


As far as YOU know. That is what YOU believe. Sometimes I hope there is a God to save me from opinionated zealots.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2011
Why is it so remarkably round?
Gravity
bluehigh
3.7 / 5 (18) Nov 05, 2011
Why is it so remarkably round?
Gravity


On its own that seems highly unlikely. I expect it must be miniscule. Must be other factors else all these smaller objects would be spherical, which they are not. Then again I have not had coffee or breakfast and have been confronted by martian aliens and geese laying golden eggs while stable neutrons decay, so the thought of a death star approaching is a distinct possibility at this time.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2011
No, unless something slows the asteroid down. A collision with a nother asteroid while it is near the earth could do it. Capturing an asteroid in earth orbit would be a neat way to create a permanent space station, with all the building material and radiation shielding one could want.
God could slow it down. God could drop it on las vegas if he wanted.
The Bible said that uncaused cause was God. So, science and the Bible do not appear to be at odds.
Except the bible is full of mistakes, contradictions, mistakes, deception, lies, etc. Science is generally the search for truth and function.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.8 / 5 (53) Nov 05, 2011
"Why is it so remarkably round?" - Ubivon

Because it is an alien spacecraft sent from planet MetaLuna.

It's here to pick up the worlds telephone sanitizers for a free trip to their home planet for a wonderful first contact meal.

Actually, it's a very good question, to which no one has a provable answer.

It is probably coated in a nice thick layer of dust that has made it very nearly spherical. Like Rush Limbaugh.
CHollman82
2.5 / 5 (30) Nov 05, 2011
Just as it is assumed that no information survives a black hole.
- CHollman

As evidenced by the black hole between your ears.


Insults give you the appearance of intelligence and maturity. Well done.

As far as we know matter/energy does not have an origin.


As far as YOU know.


Nope, as far as anyone knows... Last I checked the first law of thermodynamics still holds and no human has EVER witnessed the creation of matter or energy...

That is what YOU believe.


This is not about belief this is about evidence.

Sometimes I hope there is a God to save me from opinionated zealots.


I am not speaking of opinions, but of facts. The FACT is no one has witnessed the true origin of ANYTHING. What we refer to as "origin" is ALWAYS merely a re-arrangement of pre-existing matter/energy.

If you want my opinion the concept of "origin" is a human invention and has no meaning in nature.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.6 / 5 (51) Nov 05, 2011
"God could slow it down" - Otto

Look.. God doesn't make mistakes right?

So if he can't be mistaken then he can't change his mind since his first thought would have been the correct one. If he were to change his mind then either his first mind would have been an error, or his changed mind would be an error. But God is infallible like the Pope so he doesn't make errors, and hence he - as logic demands - never change his mind.

So God can't change it's direction if he likes, because he has already decided not to or else it would have had it's direction changed.

God is trapped, and left immutable by his own perfection.

Ebaneezer
2.8 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2011
Why is it that there are always arguments between science and religion on articles such as these. Who cares who is right and who is wrong, the truth is no one knows for certain. As of right now our race as a whole is not capable of understanding how the universe really works. we have theories and some factual information but until we are able to travel the universe i think we are left just guessing. Things will become more clear once we are able to travel outside of our solar system and look inward. Right now we can only look out through the window earth has given us. Soon we will see the big picture and it will open the doors to wonderful advancements in science and understanding. Stop bickering about "god" and "creation" for all we know all that "is" has forever "been"
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (21) Nov 05, 2011
"God could slow it down" - Otto

Look.. God doesn't make mistakes right?

So if he can't be mistaken then he can't change his mind since his first thought would have been the correct one.

So God can't change it's direction if he likes, because he has already decided not to or else it would have had it's direction changed.

God is trapped, and left immutable by his own perfection.



The Judeo-Christian God is self-contradictory and therefore self-defeating.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.6 / 5 (49) Nov 05, 2011
"Who cares who is right and who is wrong, the truth is no one knows for certain."- Eversneezer

Sorry sneezer. Scientists know for certain. The Religionists on the other hand known nothing.

So lets see... Scientists 100% sure. Relgionist 0% sure.

On average (100% 0%)/2 = 50%.

Proof that nothing is knowable.

Oh.... Wait....

CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (24) Nov 05, 2011
Why is it that there are always arguments between science and religion on articles such as these. Who cares who is right and who is wrong, the truth is no one knows for certain. As of right now our race as a whole is not capable of understanding how the universe really works. we have theories and some factual information but until we are able to travel the universe i think we are left just guessing. Things will become more clear once we are able to travel outside of our solar system and look inward. Right now we can only look out through the window earth has given us. Soon we will see the big picture and it will open the doors to wonderful advancements in science and understanding. Stop bickering about "god" and "creation" for all we know all that "is" has forever "been"


While this is all true, if everyone had this attitude toward progress and understanding we would never reach the point you describe.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (23) Nov 05, 2011
Insults give you the appearance of intelligence and maturity. Well done.


Intelligence and maturity ... more things you know nothing about.

I am not speaking of opinions, but of facts.


Most of your verbal vomit is ignorant opinions. You would not know a fact if it hit you on the head.

bredmond
5 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2011
They should rename the astroid as Brian Rock, because it will arrive exactly on my brother's 35th birthday, and he is named Brian. The name 2005 YU55 is not very nice.
Ebaneezer
4.7 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2011
I think my post was taken the wrong way. What i was leaning towards is this. Why are people who are religious even on here commenting on this article? This is a science related topic. As for the science side of my post, we all know science is an evolving subject. The more we learn the more we understand, and in turn the way we think and look at things changes. I was just pointing out that we don't know everything there is to know about how our universe works. To believe that is completely ignorant and leaves no room for learning. This is a very rare opportunity for us to explore the unknown and i'm glad to see people interested in this sort of thing.
hard2grep
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2011
So what if it hits the moon?
Vendicar_Decarian
1.4 / 5 (47) Nov 05, 2011
"So what if it hits the moon?" - Hard2grep

Then we will know that the Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity are wrong and spend much time wondering how this could be possible when they predict the motions of the planets and other gravitating bodies everywhere else with such immaculate precision.

Did you learn science from watching Space 1999?

Sandra was my favorite.
bottomlesssoul
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2011
What is cool is its impact energy if it were to hit (not happening) is 1 giga tonne TNT equivalent. Human fossil fuel consumption in 2010 is estimated at 16 giga tonne. Stuff like this is (basically) harmless unless you're under it or get splashed by a few waves it kicks up. We're doing it to ourselves a dozen times a year.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
Seems to me IF God exists, and IF he created the universe and also directed the writing of the Bible, then the two would not contradict one another.
Seems that way to me also. Since the Bible does contradict the Universe then it is clear the Bible is not the word of a god.

Was that a hit and run post? Are you going to reply. I ask because it is so rare for a Fundamentalist to more than hit and run posts.

The Bible also states that the universe had a beginning.
But not 13.5GY. More like 6 to 12 KY. That is quite few orders of magnitude.

Therefore, the universe must have had a cause outside of itself.
No. That does not follow from anything you said. However I go for math as the cause. That is the Universe exists because it can.

Something not made of matter, something outside of time and space, something VERY powerful.
That fits mathematics.>>
CHollman82
2 / 5 (25) Nov 05, 2011
Insults give you the appearance of intelligence and maturity. Well done.


Intelligence and maturity ... more things you know nothing about.


Well done, this is the third time today you have basically said "I know you are but what I am"... You act like a 5 year old.

I am not speaking of opinions, but of facts.

Most of your verbal vomit is ignorant opinions. You would not know a fact if it hit you on the head.


It is a fact that no one has observed and identified the origin or creation of matter/energy. It is a fact that the first law of thermodynamics still holds true. If you think otherwise you are a fool.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
So, science and the Bible do not appear to be at odds
You are ignoring all of Genesis except the first verse when you make that claim.

In fact, classical scientists who were Christians, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, etc., thought that by studying the creation using science, one could learn more about the Creator.
And through that effort we have found that the Bible does not match the world much less the Universe.

They certainly didn't hold your view.
True. They did not know all anywhere near as much as we do now. The most recent you mentioned was Newton. He was also into alchemy. He was wrong about that as well.

Now would you like to discuss the order of Creation and which one would you like to discuss. Genesis Two contradicts Genesis One but I suppose we could discuss both anyway. How about that Flood that never happened? When was it supposed to have happened in your view?

Ethelred
Glyndwr
2.5 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2011
As a biologist I find that Science is 100% anything laughable, the only certainty iis uncertainty, but science is the way forward for me at this time. Not religious at all just saying nothing is 100% anything
hush1
2.9 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2011
Everyone knows the world is flat. That is a fact.
O.k. Let's fast forward that:
Everyone knows the world is round.That is a fact.
O.k. Let's fast forward that:
Everyone know the world is .......That is a fact.
And so on. Ad infinitum.
Facts are place holders till you fast forward.

If we give one time visiting asteroids satellites, then this is better than lonely voyagers.
omatumr
1 / 5 (16) Nov 06, 2011
"We're extremely confident, 100 percent confident, that this is not a threat"


So lets see... Scientists 100% sure. Relgionist 0% sure.


If you want an answer to any question, ask the village idiot.

Whether scientist or religionist, this creature that has been alive for X years -- composed of ~10^13 living cells, each composed of ~10^14 atoms -- will be unable to explain why:

a.) The cells of its body not have lived X years, and

b.) Atoms in each cell were exchanging with those in food, water and air over much more limited lifespan of the cell.

Hang in there!
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Smashin_Z_1885
3 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2011
As far as the comment concerning origins being nothing but a question of re-arrangement of matter/energies: This is correct in a sense, I think. Quantum foam has probably always existed, and everything else, whatever it's origin, is simply various re-arrangements into some format (or formats) that us humans can perceive and comprehend as reality. Dont' forget to remind yourself that all that you know is also based entirely on the interpretations of electrical signals within your brain. It's highly probable that none of us know anything, about anything, except that the one thing we can not doubt; that we have conscious experience (even if all is an illusion, we still can say for sure, that we experience said illusion). And now another question arises from that truth; Who are we? And how is this?
Further; Time is a perceived concept, it does not exist. All "time" that you perceive in your brain is always "now", all the time. Now is all there really is.
seb
5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2011
I have to laugh at the 'god' stuff.. the sheer arrogance of thinking your mythology is somehow any different than the thousands of previous mythologies always makes me chuckle. In a few thousand years people will look down on the current religions much in the same way the current ones look down on say, greek or egyptian or roman mythologies.

Silly humans.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2011
@Vendicar_Decarian
It is probably coated in a nice thick layer of dust that has made it very nearly spherical. Like Rush Limbaugh.
I doubt that, as the dust would need to be nearly frictionless to form a sphere, and the solar wind would be acting on it at this distance anyway.

I suspect it may have been a liquid globule at one time.

I'd sure like to know more about it. I wonder, what's it made of?

jr4jc
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2011
I have to laugh at these kind of discussions, God vs Science.
One side believes that a God they cannot see has done things incredible and set laws in place that would be almost impossible for one person to put together and not screw up. The other side believes that matter and the laws that guide them just happened because thats been proven by lots of theory's and hypothesis'.
We still don't know how gravity works, there are theory's.
We still think that living organisms are evolving, though nothing living right now is changing from one genus to another. species and genus are defined that way. but darwin theorized if evolution can take place within a species, maybe it can within a genus, hypothetical and maybe even logical, but as of yet no proof, that is why it is called a theory.
So those that believe that this all took place without a being with a will behind it are called the smart intelligent ones, and those that think that God did it are immature, or unstable.
jr4jc
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2011
stephen hawkins states that he believes there must be a being behind all the laws that govern the world around us, because of how they work with each other. And i get to discuss things of intelligence with you guys that are smarter than him. As somebody listed many of the great scientific minds were christians, and to think you guys are smarter than them!!! wow. Where you gonna be in a hundred years??
You may actually be where you think you will be. but then again i may actually be where i think i'm gonna be too.
philosophical but true. God has a sense of humor doesn't he.
ilumio
2 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2011
Is that bundle of giant pixels really the best image of 2005 YU55 anyone can possibly come up with? It amazes me how we have detailed images of objects that are light years away and yet even our best images of planets in the outer solar system remain little more than a smudgy blur.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2011
Look.. God doesn't make mistakes right?

So if he can't be mistaken then he can't change his mind since his first thought would have been the correct one. If he were to change his mind then either his first mind would have been an error, or his changed mind would be an error. But God is infallible like the Pope so he doesn't make errors, and hence he - as logic demands - never change his mind.

So God can't change it's direction if he likes, because he has already decided not to or else it would have had it's direction changed.

God is trapped, and left immutable by his own perfection.
Nice logic, but factually flawed.

For instance: The Bible admits the Old Covenant is in error and needs to be replaced with the New Covenant.

Hebrews 8:6, 8-13: "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, there would have been no need for a second one."

Ergo, the biblical God is not immutable.

Isaacsname
5 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2011
People, people...*holds up hands*...there's little or nothing to fear.....I have deduced that this asteroid is comprised of only 58 pixels...it's harmless.
Isaacsname
2.3 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2011
" Nope, as far as anyone knows... Last I checked the first law of thermodynamics still holds and no human has EVER witnessed the creation of matter or energy..."

Creation of matter.. ?

http://en.wikiped...creation

..???
ShotmanMaslo
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2011
First law and second law of thermodynamics are not in conflict with big bang theory (altough we dont realy know much about the first instant of existence).

First law states that amount of total energy is invariable in time. This could very well be true in big bang theory.

The second law states that entropy can only increase. This also could be true in big bang theory.
PieRSquare
3 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2011
Argh! I almost hope the asteroid hits me before I have to sift though more endless and pointless posts about religion (pro or con) that have nothing to do with the purpose of this site. Read the posting guidelines.
Kedas
5 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2011
about being round:It is a 2D view, it could be a lot less round than you think. Maybe this is the only view that makes it look round...
I also assume it will lose the edges the more it has collisions with smaller object.

I think the probability that it is borg ship is low because it is too small ;)

Also the score filter above should have an option to remove all messages about god.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2011
We still don't know how gravity works, there are theory's.
The theory works. So we do know how gravity works, at least within the bounds of the evidence available.

We still think that living organisms are evolving
Not quite. Evolution is by reproduction so living organism do not evolve. Species and lines of descent evolve.

though nothing living right now is changing from one genus to another.
I see you are a Creationist. And wrong. For one, species change to other species, not a different genus. For another I have an example species that fits even Creationist claims of kinds.

Flying squirrels. When combined with the clear evidence that bats came from TWO unrelated ancestral species we have another example. Fruit bats came from PRIMATES. The smaller bats ancestor is not certain but was clearly closer to a rodent than a primate.>>
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2011
darwin theorized if evolution can take place within a species, maybe it can within a genus
No. Go read the book. The theory has adapted to new evidence in any case. Unlike fundamentalists, biology deals with new evidence.

that is why it is called a theory
No. Its called a theory because it fits the evidence. Just like Special Relativity was still a theory even after the Bomb went off. Yes THAT bomb. I don't know how many times people have acted as they never heard of Hiroshima.

So those that believe that this all took place without a being with a will behind it are called the smart intelligent ones
Well we are the ones trying to find out how things work instead saying a god did everything.

and those that think that God did it are immature, or unstable
Or just plain have no understanding of how science works. Kind of like you. You don't know what a theory is or why it is bad science to assume a god did it. If you don't run off I am willing to explain this.
>>
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2011
stephen hawkins states that he believes there must be a being behind all the laws
No. That is false. Clearly you are REALLY new around here. You missed this article.

http://www.physor...530.html

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes in "The Grand Design", which is being serialised by The Times newspaper.
Do try to keep up.

And i get to discuss things of intelligence with you guys that are smarter than him.
Some of us maybe but I doubt it. However we are smart enough to know when someone doesn't have a clue. That would be you so far. Ignorance is curable. Please read the link above to see what Dr. Hawking really thinks.

As somebody listed many of the great scientific minds were christians
And many weren't or ceased to be Christians. Darwin was a divinity student.>>
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2011
and to think you guys are smarter than them!!!
Just more knowledgeable. A LOT has been learned since Newton.

God has a sense of humor doesn't he.
If there is a god that god may have a sense of humor BUT the god of the Bible sure didn't. Nasty piece of work that Jehovah.

Now would YOU like to discuss the Great Flood and when it occurred? Or evolution as you clearly learned everything you have misheard about it from Creationists.

Just quite pretending that you were using reason in those two posts. They were displays of ignorance. We can help you learn.

Unfortunately you are most likely just another hit and run Creationist that thought he was clever. That would be two on this thread.

Hit and run Creationists, they have no guts so they have no glory.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (18) Nov 06, 2011
First law and second law of thermodynamics are not in conflict with big bang theory (altough we dont realy know much about the first instant of existence).


Really? Explain then the sudden creation of everything from nothing without cause.

Big Bang dogma is as dogmatic and illogical as other stories of Genesis.

omatumr
Nov 06, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CHollman82
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 06, 2011
I find that Science is 100% anything laughable, the only certainty iis uncertainty, but science is the way forward for me at this time. just saying nothing is 100% anything


I'm not sure if my post inspired you to write this, but if it did:

1 1 = 2

Facts exist in the context of defined systems. Facts exist about defined concepts. Facts exist about meta-information.

It is a fact that there is no evidence that anyone has ever witnessed the true creation/origin of anything.

It is my opinion that given this fact we should not ASSUME without evidence (also known as faith) that the human concept of creation or origin is meaningful outside of it's definition as a human concept. That is, we should not assume it has natural meaning, we should not assume origin or creation is a property of reality or the constituents thereof. The belief that most closely aligns with the evidence is that matter/energy has always existed, and that should be considered the null hypothesis.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2011
The null hypothesis:
Is God accessible to scientific method?
No.
yyz
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2011
Some of the above comments have been about the asteroid's apparent sphericity. Keep in mind this is as relatively lo-res radar image of this body. This, coupled with the fact that we are viewing it from this unique angle is by no means indicative of the actual 3D shape of this asteroid. Phobos would look spherical given the proper viewing angle and equivalent resolution.

As for this asteroid hitting the moon, the diagram in this article: http://www.univer...anation/

shows that while 2005 YU55 crosses the moons orbit, the true path of the asteroid is offset from the plane of the Earth's orbit, thus precluding a collision this pass (not to mention that the moon is nowhere near the asteroid).

(con't)

Nerdyguy
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2011
Oy, nobody got the joke.

"Is it possible that the asteroid can get stuck around earth and become another moon?"

-This question was posted by "I AM GOD".

Thus, the science/religion thing. God can't figure it out, get it? Get it?
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2011
(con't)

If by some chance this small asteroid were to impact the moon, a days-long meteor shower might result. In studying the possibility of a claimed impact of a small (0.5-2mile diameter) body with the moon, witnessed in 1178 A.D., it was found that this would have been followed by an extended intense meteor display (think about a week-long Leonid meteor storm!).

Unfortunately, no intense meteor storms were observed in the days after the alleged 1178 impact, making an impact event improbable. A collision of 2005 YU55 with the moon would probably create a similar scenario, beautiful as it would be.

For more info on the 1178 event: http://science.na...26apr_1/
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2011
So if he can't be mistaken then he can't change his mind since his first thought would have been the correct one. If he were to change his mind then either his first mind would have been an error, or his changed mind would be an error.
Naw if you read the bible you see god changes his mind all the time. Any clever prophet or king could play him like a fiddle.

Even the devil could tempt him. 'Hey what say we have a little fun with Job?' 'Nah that would be wrong.' 'Oh come on. You so sure he could take it?' 'Well ok. But don't kill him, just his whole family.'

Perhaps god only feigns ignorance for comedic effect?
Cont==>
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2011
God will also alter the course of world events if believers ask him to in the right way. If they have been good, and close their eyes real tight and wish with all their might, sometimes they get what they want. Even at the expense of others not quite so deserving.

But the key is they have to BEG for it. Like the woman in this Religulous clip at 3:30
http://www.youtub...a_player
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (23) Nov 06, 2011
We still think that living organisms are evolving, though nothing living right now is changing from one genus to another. species and genus are defined that way. but darwin theorized if evolution can take place within a species, maybe it can within a genus, hypothetical and maybe even logical, but as of yet no proof, that is why it is called a theory.


This is very ignorant. You don't know what the word theory means in the context of science, and you don't know anything about evolution... We have witnessed speciation, look it up and educate yourself before you say anything incorrect about it again and potentially confuse others.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (24) Nov 06, 2011
" Nope, as far as anyone knows... Last I checked the first law of thermodynamics still holds and no human has EVER witnessed the creation of matter or energy..."

Creation of matter.. ?

http://en.wikiped...creation

..???


/sigh...

They are talking about energy->matter conversion... they are using the word "creation" erroneously. Matter and energy are two different states of the same thing, and of course according to the famous e=mc^2 they are interchangeable. That article is talking about conversion from energy to matter... hence when they talk about 2 photons "creating" matter...

Matter/energy should be referred to as a single entity, the creation of matter/energy has never been observed, though OF COURSE we have observed conversion from one to the other.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 06, 2011
The null hypothesis:
Is God accessible to scientific method?
No.


If something exists and it's existence is meaningful then it interacts with reality. If something interacts with reality than it is accessible to the scientific method.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2011
If something interacts with reality than it is accessible to the scientific method.

In this case hush1 is right. The scientific method requires falsifiability. A god could not be falsified because any and every result of an experiment can be consistent with that god.

On the other hand this also means that the concept of god does not allow to delineate anything against anything else, since any event can be said to be because of/or not because of that god for the very same reason.

So the concept of a god (or gods) is completely free of any information when applied to anything we experience - and hence eminently useless.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (25) Nov 06, 2011
First law and second law of thermodynamics are not in conflict with big bang theory (altough we dont realy know much about the first instant of existence).


Really? Explain then the sudden creation of everything from nothing without cause.

Big Bang dogma is as dogmatic and illogical as other stories of Genesis.


This tells me you know nothing about the big bang theory... it is NOT a theory for the origin of everything, it is a theory for an event that occurred at a specific point in the past beyond which no information survived. It is the theory of the origin of all the information in the universe, information prior to this event has been lost for good, according to the theory.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2011
If something interacts with reality than it is accessible to the scientific method.

In this case hush1 is right. The scientific method requires falsifiability. A god could not be falsified because any and every result of an experiment can be consistent with that god.

On the other hand this also means that the concept of god does not allow to delineate anything against anything else, since any event can be said to be because of/or not because of that god for the very same reason.

So the concept of a god (or gods) is completely free of any information when applied to anything we experience - and hence eminently useless.


Yes I agree, I was careless with that statement. It is true that real physical entity could be able to intentionally obscure itself from all observation and detection, in which case it would not be subject to the scientific method.
Darren_Spain
5 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2011
I'd like to know how someone asking a question about this becoming another moon spiraled downward into the putrid depths of religious debate.
gareth_Ph
4.3 / 5 (14) Nov 06, 2011
All religion is false. End of story.
Feldagast
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2011
Too bad gareth, hope you enjoy nothing after its over.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2011
Another holy holiday to learn from:

'Eid al-Adha, or the Feast of Sacrifice, honours Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael on the order of God, who according to Islamic tradition provided a lamb in the boy's place.'

-A biblical story. Abraham sets the example for parents who must teach their children to fight and die for their religion, on the battlefield on in the street, in the hope that maybe they will be spared if they are offered up willingly and without complaint?

And if they are not spared then there are plenty of examples in those books on how to deal with this too. The books TELL believers to multiply and fill up the earth. The books TELL them that their children are like arrows in the hand of a warrior. And the books TELL them that the sacrifice of these children in service to their god is the highest honor.

So what have we learned? That religious books contain explicit instructions for conquest? How many more holidays do you need? They ALL tell us this.
dan42day
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2011
geeez, all the crap I have to wade through just to gripe that they never seem to specify a closing speed when they report these things.
Graeme
1 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2011
If we get these size asteroids impacting every 10000 years, where are all those 4 mile diameter craters? Perhaps most of the impacts are not that big.

Perhaps a steel cable could attach it to the moon and slow it down to be in orbit around the earth. That would be some engineering feat.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (34) Nov 07, 2011
"Religulous clip at 3:30" - Otto

I prefer this clip.

http://www.youtub...=related
CHollman82
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 07, 2011
If we get these size asteroids impacting every 10000 years, where are all those 4 mile diameter craters? Perhaps most of the impacts are not that big.


Earth has several dynamic and highly active natural systems that serve to "erase" such things over time. Volcanism, tectonics, the water cycle, sedimentation and soil accumulation, etc... all contribute to reshaping the land constantly. Smaller things will be erased more quickly, and it depends largely on where they occur.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2011
about being round:It is a 2D view, it could be a lot less round than you think. Maybe this is the only view that makes it look round...
I've checked additional sources and it's generally described as being spherical.

From NASA:
"The ghostly image has a resolution of 7.5 meters (25 feet) per pixel. It reveals 2005 YU55 as a spherical object about 400 meters (1,300 feet) in size."

http://www.nasa.g...429.html

LivaN
3.8 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
dwickizer
Furthermore, cosmology clearly shows that the universe had a beginning 13.73 billion years ago.

No, it shows that the universe was in a state of infinite density. To call that point a beginning is to call the North Pole a beginning simply because you can't go any higher.

dwickizer
Therefore, the universe must have had a cause outside of itself. Something not made of matter, something outside of time and space,

Assumption. Define cause outside of dimensions?

dwickizer
something VERY powerful.

Assumption. Define power outside of dimensions?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
Perhaps a steel cable could attach it to the moon and slow it down to be in orbit around the earth. That would be some engineering feat.

Asteroids travel at about 10 to 70 kilometers per second(!). You want to stop anything with the mass of several thousand aircraft carriers going at that speed with a steel cable? You have got to be joking.

Earth has several dynamic and highly active natural systems that serve to "erase" such things over time. Volcanism,

Not to mention that most of these impacts will not be on land - so leave no crater at all.
Vreejack
3 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2011
Capture is possible but tricky. A two-body system is extremely stable so--barring collisions--a third body would be required to capture an asteroid. If a body came in at the right angle and velocity it might be able to exchange momentum with the earth-moon system as a whole, resulting in capture. The moon, being relatively large, would not be significantly budged. This scenario is unlikely to occur naturally, however. Instead, if we really wanted capture such a beast we could send out a tug to gently guide the asteroid into a favorable course. Given enough lead time this would be easy, but it requires patience.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2011
Given enough lead time this would be easy, but it requires patience.

A much easier way is to just nudge it into a collision course with the Moon (and then mine/study it there - which is also a lot easier than mining/studying anything in zero g). No fiddling about with trying to slow it down so it even _can_ be captured.

How would we do that anyways? Tugs/gravity probes can only change the direction - not the velocity (gravity probes can't do it at all and tugs would require fuel masses a LOT in excess of what we can put into orbit - let alone on a soft rendezvous trajectory to an asteroid billions of kilometers out from Earth.). Impactors to slow it down would need to be huge or incredibly numerous and would likely destroy the object at some point.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
"Religulous clip at 3:30" - Otto

I prefer this clip.

http://www.youtub...=related
Bundy sees god at 4:50...
http://www.youtub...a_player
Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (36) Nov 07, 2011
"I'd sure like to know more about it. I wonder, what's it made of?" - Ubavona

It is made from pure Love.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
@Venditard Detardian
It is made from pure Love.
Really. I think you can do better than that.

I propose it may have initially stablized as a liquid globule in space. If so, knowing the material from which it is made determines the temperature required for this to occur.

hush1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2011
The null hypothesis:
Is God accessible to the scientific method?
No - Hush


If something exists and it's existence is meaningful then it interacts with reality. If something interacts with reality than it is accessible to the scientific method. - CH


We are in agreement as to what is accessible to scientific method. The existence of something. You assert reality exists.
For the application of scientific method reality must exist.
The application depends on the definition of reality.

What are you on about? Why did you feel the need to reply to my comment. Do we disagree on the working definition of reality to make the application of scientific method possible?
No.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2011
Can not retract the above comment. AP expressed the point in greater detail which led you to agreement.
We all agreed to agree on the original statement.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
I propose it may have initially stablized as a liquid globule in space. If so, knowing the material from which it is made determines the temperature required for this to occur.
You propose. You PROPOSE. Based on what? Your vast experience and training as a materials scientist? Your knowledge of astrophysics? Your familiarity with what scientists actually know about this object?

Or a few fuzzy pics and the word 'round' from some news articles?

More absurd audacity from an accomplished self-delusionist.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2011
I propose it may have initially stablized as a liquid globule in space. If so, knowing the material from which it is made determines the temperature required for this to occur.
You propose. You PROPOSE. Based on what? Your vast experience and training as a materials scientist? Your knowledge of astrophysics? Your familiarity with what scientists actually know about this object?
Yes.

Or a few fuzzy pics and the word 'round' from some news articles?
What. You don't trust NASA as a resource for information about space now? Or, did you miss my last reference to the NASA data?

More absurd audacity from an accomplished self-delusionist.
Otto, of the several self-deluded serial posters here, I would rank you the winner in the "Crackpot Conspiracy Theorist" award category and second runner up (perhaps third runner up, but it's close) for the "Biggest Crackpot On Physorg" award.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2011
CHollman82:
...the big bang theory...information prior to this event has been lost for good, according to the theory.

Yes but note: not according to the cyclic theories.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2011
Ethelred:
... Unlike fundamentalists, biology deals with new evidence.

Note: Fundamentalists are digging up new evidence every day.

...matter/energy has always existed, and that should be considered the null hypothesis.

Here's a paradox: What was there before time? Well maybe not a paradox just a trick question.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2011
Kedas:
...Also the score filter above should have an option to remove all messages about god.

Pardon. What god?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2011
ShotmanMaslo:
...The second law states that entropy can only increase. This also could be true in big bang theory.

Also the cyclic models. My take is when the dark energy runs out (temperature absolute 0) and spacetime starts to recollapse the energy stored in expansion is returned to the dark energy and the temperature rises. All matter with the possible exceptions of leptons, if it hasn't evaporated into energy by the time the dark energy runs out, is fried. Without cooling, no matter can be created (except perhaps pair production, where the particles will probably be fried before they can accumulate).
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2011
Ethelred:
...Newton. He was also into alchemy. He was wrong about that as well.

Yea well he got us to the moon and back. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2011
CHollman82:

...It is a fact that no one has observed and identified the origin or creation of matter/energy.

Dark energy, yes. Otherwise I thought it was the uncertainty principle which loans out (dark) energy for a short interval of time. The trick is nature knows how to grab onto it and use it for awhile before the offer expires. In the end, though, the loan is called in and the dark energy collects everything in prep for the next BB.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2011
Vendicar_Decarian:
...Scientists know for certain.

Really now. Scientists know for certain what? The uncertainty principle?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
CHollman82:
...The Judeo-Christian God is self-contradictory and therefore self-defeating.

What? I guess even Einstein thought he made a mistake. But he was wrong.

...God is trapped, and left immutable by his own perfection.

Give him a break. You'd think he'd be smarter than that.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
CHollman82:

...It is a fact that no one has observed and identified the origin or creation of matter/energy.

Dark energy, yes. Otherwise I thought it was the uncertainty principle which loans out (dark) energy for a short interval of time. The trick is nature knows how to grab onto it and use it for awhile before the offer expires. In the end, though, the loan is called in and the dark energy collects everything in prep for the next BB.

Add to dark energy the leptons. It seems they've been around forever. They're probably passed on through the BB lightning strike.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
Fundamentalists are digging up new evidence every day.
Really how about you link to something that is actual evidence. You know, evidence that the world is young and that both the Great Flood actually happened and it happened when the Bible has it as opposed to thousands or even years before the world got started in the Fundamentalist version of the Universe.

matter/energy has always existed, and that should be considered the null hypothesis.
Math has always existed and allows for energy-matter to pop into existence if there is an equal amount of negative energy. In the math for gravity it has negative energy.

Here's a paradox: What was there before time?
Not a paradox. Its self contradictory. An alternative way to say it, which is not self-contradictory, is 'can there be anything outside of time'. The answer is yes. Math does not need time to be valid.

Well maybe not a paradox just a trick question.
The trick is that is self-contradictory and thus invalid.>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
Pardon. What god?
The one being discussed in this thread of course. Which is usually Jehovah. Not very many pushing Allah.

Yea well he got us to the moon and back. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
I think it is time you learned to quote [QQ]whatever you want to quote except use ONE q upper or lower case[/QQ] and that is the only BB code they allow.

What? I guess even Einstein thought he made a mistake. But he was wrong.
You made that one up. Einstein did NOT believe a Jehovah or any other personal god. He seems to most closely fit Deism except even that is a bit more then he actually believed. More of first principle than a creating entity. He seemed to waffle a bit on that.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
Ethelred:
...Fundamentalists are digging up new evidence every day. -Seeker2
...Really how about you link to something that is actual evidence

Maybe not strictly fundamentalists, but actual evidence:
http://ancientliv...anscribe and
http://www.youtub...V7A8zkXw
Seeker2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
Ethelred:
...I think it is time you learned to quote [QQ]whatever you want to quote except use ONE q upper or lower case[/QQ] and that is the only BB code they allow.

Ok so how do you display a plus sign?
Also BB means?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
Maybe not strictly fundamentalists, but actual evidence
That isn't evidence except to a Fundamentalist that is under the delusion that more copies counts as corroboration. You can't corroborate the Bible by quoting it even if the quotes are from an older source. Unless the older source has things like Oh say 'the Earth is a sphere not a circle' 'there was flood somewhere in Anatolia and Noah just grabbed a bunch of goats and tossed them on his raft'.

To give an example(real) of evidence to support the Bible. For most of history there has been no evidence that Pontious Pilate existed, except for the claim in the Bible and that is circular if you are trying to prove it accurate. However in the 1990's an inscription was found for a building in Jerusalem that included his name as the Governor of Judea, at least I recall that as the detail. Now that was corroboration that he existed but does not prove it was of divine origin.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
That Youtube didn't seem to have any evidence either but I only looked at the start. I have no real interest in the practice of crucification. Got enough of that in Catholic School. As bad it was I can't quite put in the same class as impalement. Close. The evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the Bible is almost completely nonexistent. I am not saying he didn't exist just that the Bible is pretty much it. NOTHING from same time, including the Bible which as written much later.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2011
Ok so how do you display a plus sign?
A straight forward tap on the (OK that didn't work I never noticed I can't get PLUS key) key does nicely for me, % as well.

Are you typing directly into the box or using a word processor? Word processors screw things with the code they use. Use a text processor. Even Notepad is better than Word for this.

I use Notepad which supports macros, is tabbed, and you can add a spellcheck, though the word list is archaic and I have had to add a lot of words to it. I use a macro for quotes, that way I don't normally have a whole post marked as a quote because I hit the wrong key closing the quote.

http://notepad-plus-plus.org/

BB code is Bulletin Board code. Its a pseudo HTML. Uses [/] instead of < / >(ate that) to tell the board's software what HTML to generate. For instance most boards allow [b]BOLD[/b] but not this place.

Did you piss down Orac's back and tell him it was raining? Sorry I forgot, none of us have had the chance.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2011

Edit failed experiment

Ethelred
bluehigh
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2011
Did you piss down Orac's back and tell him it was raining? Sorry I forgot, none of us have had the chance


Surely Orac is CHollman (albeit a pleasantly quite one) . Happy to be wrong Orac but ..

Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2011
Ö Ñ ± OK try &plus and ± ± B

Another experiment

Ethelred
bluehigh
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2011
Ethelred ... what on earth are you doing. Go get laid for goodness sake!
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
I am trying to get the bloody damned pissant stupid site to print a PLUS KEY with HTML ampersand codes. Some of those codes actually worked, which I did not expect, but not that one. Makes the site pitch a fit too. Get one of those yellow bad code screens.

Watch I will now get a DIVIDE symbol by typing in ampersand divide and by typing in ampersand symbol for number(yes I have watched 3 Days of the Condor too many times)247

Abracabra ÷ ÷

That better shazam.

You know real forums have experiment areas for a reason. Here I have to either find a moribund page no one every commented on or use the one in progress.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2011
OK then here are special keys of interest
http://tlt.its.ps...art.html

PLUS OR MINUS & plusmn ±
NOT EQUALS & ne
GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO & ge
LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO & le
SQUARE ROOT & radic
CUBE ROOT & #8731
INFINITY & infin
CIRCLED PLUS as a cheat & oplus

Ooh this one might be cool

X SQUARED X& sup2 X&sup2 also X&sup3
MICRO & micro µ
APROXIMATELY EQUAL TO & cong
MINUS OR PLUS & #8723

Now this one may work
DOT PLUS #8724
HERMITIAN CONJUGATE MATRIX & #8889

OK print it.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2011
OK then here are special keys of interest
http://tlt.its.ps...art.html

PLUS OR MINUS & plusmn ±
DIVIDE & divide ÷

Ooh this one might be cool

Well only this one worked
MICRO & micro µ

Now this one may work

No. I got three that worked.

OK print it.

Ethelred
CHollman82
1 / 5 (15) Nov 08, 2011
Yes but note: not according to the cyclic theories.


Only if those cyclic theories are deterministic. Determinism is a hard pill to swallow... though not for scientific reasons but for the consequences thereof.
Seeker2
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2011
Ethelred:
...For most of history there has been no evidence that Pontious Pilate existed, except for the claim in the Bible

...NOTHING from same time, including the Bible which as written much later

Google Josephus. Or check out Crossan's The Historical Jesus, first 100 pages covering Josephus before even getting to Jesus. Terribly boring stuff, though. Sorry. If you can't get through the video though I don't think this will help. Maybe you could google John Dominic Crossan.

Is 1 1=2? (1plus1=2)
Is 1% 1=2? (1%plus1=2)
Maybe 1% %1=2? (1%plus%1=2)

I use notepad.
Seeker2
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2011
Another failed experiment on above post. CHollman82 What does this stuff about determinism have anything to do with anything I said?
CHollman82
1 / 5 (15) Nov 08, 2011
Another failed experiment on above post. CHollman82 What does this stuff about determinism have anything to do with anything I said?


In response to my assertion that the big bang is an event through which no information was preserved you responded by saying that that is not the case in cyclic universe theories. This is only true in those theories if they believe in determinism and that each "cycle" is identical. In that case information of the past is the same as information of the present and the future.
Seeker2
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2011
CHollman82 have you ever heard of the uncertainty principle?
CHollman82
1 / 5 (15) Nov 09, 2011
CHollman82 have you ever heard of the uncertainty principle?


I don't know, read a few posts up where I reference it...

What is your point? I said that the big bang is an event that no information survived. You said that's not true in cyclic universe theories... how is that the case UNLESS you believe in determinism?

Did I say I believe in determinism? No, I did not. I said that the only way the big bang wouldn't have destroyed all information prior to it is if you believe in both determinism and a cyclical universe, in which case current and future events give you information about past events.
CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
Some loser with nothing else going on in his life has 5 or 6 different accounts that he uses to rate all my posts with 1's... he's been doing it for a while now, it probably gives him reason enough to go another day without killing himself.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
Some loser with nothing else going on in his life has 5 or 6 different accounts that he uses to rate all my posts with 1's... he's been doing it for a while now, it probably gives him reason enough to go another day without killing himself.
Yeah, I noticed you had a fan.

I've identified some of these anonymous downrankers in the past. Surprisingly, most of them turn out to be regular contributors - whom actually post interesting material, otherwise. It's a shame they debase themselves this way.

Most eventually grow out of it, get bored with it, or move along. A few have subsequently earned my respect by becoming interesting, generally fair-minded, and knowledgeable contributors. Let's hope your fans and this new "orac" character, are equally capable.

Seeker2
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2011
CHollman82
...how is that the case UNLESS you believe in determinism?

Sorry I just can't connect the dots between surviving information and determinism. Can anyone else out there help me see where he's coming from?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
Sorry I just can't connect the dots between surviving information and determinism. Can anyone else out there help me see where he's coming from?
If things are indeterminate as opposed to determinate than no information can pass through a BB. Which is why he said:

Only if those cyclic theories are deterministic
Only then can information pass through and even then it could still not pass through in a way that we could extract information from.

So when you asked if he had heard of the Uncertainty Principle it became clear to me that you did not understand his remark. The Uncertainty Principle should stop information from coming through a BB at least if anything remotely resembling a singularity should occur. Even if the cycle restarts when when the universe is say the size of a galaxy the whole thing would likely be at a uniform temperature pressure thus randomizing any information that might still exist.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 09, 2011
CHollman82
...how is that the case UNLESS you believe in determinism?

Sorry I just can't connect the dots between surviving information and determinism. Can anyone else out there help me see where he's coming from?


Don't be too harsh.

Big Bang is "scientific" creation for wannabe scientists with limited reasoning ability.

Coincidence and uncertainty are "scientific" explanations for events not understood.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2011
Ethelred:
...The Uncertainty Principle should stop information from coming through a BB at least if anything remotely resembling a singularity should occur.

True if the singularity or whatever it is is no larger than one Planck volume. However since the CMBR is constant to within 1 part per 1000 it seems there's lots of information there. That 1 part seems to be what makes life interesting, that is, non-deterministic.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (16) Nov 09, 2011
...how is that the case UNLESS you believe in determinism?

Sorry I just can't connect the dots between surviving information and determinism. Can anyone else out there help me see where he's coming from?


I'll try to explain myself better:

Again, you agreed with me that no information survived from before the big bang, but you said that is not true if you believe in a cyclical universe... the only way I can see that being the case is if EACH cycle is the same as the last, and the only way I can see that being true is if you believe in determinism. In that case, information "survives" the big bang simply because knowledge of the present gives information of knowledge of that same "present" of past cycles, prior to the most recent big bang.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (16) Nov 09, 2011
That 1 part seems to be what makes life interesting, that is, non-deterministic.


There would be no human-perceivable difference between a deterministic reality and a non-deterministic reality.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
. the only way I can see that being the case is if EACH cycle is the same as the last, and the only way I can see that being true is if you believe in determinism.
That is more than deterministic. That is a requirement for a complete reset to the exact same start, to last decimal point. This seems unlikely to me.

We already have evidence that the universe is NOT deterministic in the Uncertainty Principle and the various tests thereof. However this does not mean that there is no way to get information about what came before the decoupling of energy and matter via various types of analysis of the CMBR.

Ethelred
CHollman82
1.1 / 5 (18) Nov 09, 2011
. the only way I can see that being the case is if EACH cycle is the same as the last, and the only way I can see that being true is if you believe in determinism.
That is more than deterministic. That is a requirement for a complete reset to the exact same start, to last decimal point. This seems unlikely to me.


If the universe was deterministic and cyclical it would have to reset to the exact same start... that feature is a byproduct of those two properties.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (15) Nov 09, 2011
Also, I don't know which is more disturbing, the prospect of a deterministic universe or a non-deterministic one... each has consequences that are thoroughly unsettling.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
... each has consequences that are thoroughly unsettling.

Non-determinism at least leaves the door open for 'free' will (not in the sense of 'freely choosable' but in the sense of 'not wholly predictable')

But everything points to a probabilistic universe at the most basic level so I'm not overly concerned.

If the universe was deterministic and cyclical it would have to reset to the exact same start... that feature is a byproduct of those two properties.

That would depend on being infinitely cyclic (in which case it really would need to reset - at the latest after a certain number of cycles). Or whether it is just finitely cyclic - in which case it merely is constrained to some conservation law.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
... each has consequences that are thoroughly unsettling.

Non-determinism at least leaves the door open for 'free' will (not in the sense of 'freely choosable' but in the sense of 'not wholly predictable')


Non-determinism is also the ultimate defeat of the scientific method... I don't want reality to be based on something that inherently has no explanation.

If the universe was deterministic and cyclical it would have to reset to the exact same start... that feature is a byproduct of those two properties.

That would depend on being infinitely cyclic (in which case it really would need to reset - at the latest after a certain number of cycles). Or whether it is just finitely cyclic - in which case it merely is constrained to some conservation law.


True, good point.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
Non-determinism is also the ultimate defeat of the scientific method...

I wouldn't go that far. Statistical analyses are still valid in a non-deterministic environment ('non-deterministic' does not equal 'totally random')

Certainly the search for 'ultimate truth' would be outside the scope of science - but I think that was never the point of doing science, anyways.

I feel that cause and effect are not the end-all of laws we can state about the universe. Probably because I think that this presupposes some rigidity on the subject of what time is.

I don't want reality to be based on something that inherently has no explanation

What we want the universe to be (see also my last paragraph) doesn't, unfortunately, come into it.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
What we want the universe to be (see also my last paragraph) doesn't, unfortunately, come into it.


I'm fully aware of that... I just don't think the nature of reality is inexplicable. If I believed that I might as well believe in god and magic...
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
I wouldn't go that far. Statistical analyses are still valid in a non-deterministic environment ('non-deterministic' does not equal 'totally random')


Statistical analysis is insufficient. If 2 closed systems with equal inputs can produce two different outputs with inherently no explanation then I might as well believe in magic.
Seeker2
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2011
CHollman82:
...you agreed with me that no information survived from before the big bang

Sorry. I was wrong. Even Einstein thought he made a mistake but he was wrong. I've even had litigation on that one too.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
I just don't think the nature of reality is inexplicable

There's an alternative. I do believe the (ultimate) nature of the universe is inexplicable, but following a logical argument to that conclusion - not because I believe in gods or magic.

Explanations (scientific laws) are a method of grouping events into types (e.g: all gravity related events are grouped by Newton/Relativity). This is gives us a handle on the group but not, ultimately, down to the last digit of an individual event. (for quantum mechanics this is most obvious)

But the map (scientific law) is not the territory (reality). When you make a map you employ a packing algorithm - throwing away the stuff you DEEM unimportant for the issue at hand. (e.g. when we talk about gravity we ignore the color of an object - even though it does, infinitesimally, have an effect).

(cont.)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
(cont. from previous post)

The only way not to throw anything away (make a perfect map) is if you make a map that in every particular matches the territory. That map IS then the territory (i.e. it is not packed).

In summary: The only 'law' that perfectly simulates the universe is the universe itself. (Something that doesn't help in giving us an 'explanation' at all)

Now this makes the 'law' incredibly big - and we have been doing a great job of making it a LOT smaller by not throwing much away.

Another problem is: If you _could_ have an explanation, then you always have the question remaining: "Why is this the explanation?"(i.e. you have at least one unexplained thing left). You can get infinitely recursive about this and never come to an end.

As with math: the fundamental aximoms always remain unproven (and unprovable)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
If 2 closed systems with equal inputs can produce two different outputs with inherently no explanation then I might as well believe in magic.

The problem here is that you will never have two systems that are equal - only equal given some set of criteria you have chosen.

because:
- The systems will, at the very least, never inhabit the same spactime coordinates

There's always a difference. So different outputs are always a possibility (and nothing to fret about)
Seeker2
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2011
antialias_physorg
...You can get infinitely recursive about this and never come to an end.

I think there may still be a case for a beginning in some sense of the word.

CHollman82:
...the only way I can see that being the case is if EACH cycle is the same as the last,

Yes I'd say 99.9% of each cycle is the same as before. That is it seems the leptons and anti-leptons have been around forever (as well as the dark energy in one form or another). They're the ones that power the big crunch, and when they finally meet back up again you've got a lightning event like one from what you might call a giant double-barreled van de Graf generator. I've recently expounded on that at http://www.physor...ry.html.

So there is a case for creation, that is of the leptons and the dark energy hiding out in spacetime.

...Non-determinism is also the ultimate defeat of the scientific method

Check out the uncertainty principle.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 09, 2011
Check out the uncertainty principle.


I am well versed in the HUP thank you, I don't believe it is the end all be all of our understanding of the fundamental constituents of reality. There is a reason there are so many different interpretations of QM, we don't really understand what we think we are seeing.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 09, 2011
- The systems will, at the very least, never inhabit the same spactime coordinates


Yes that's what I meant... two identical closed systems, that is they are "on top of" each other in spacetime. If the output is truly unknowable and the only thing we can say about it for sure is based on a probability distribution and the source of that variance is inherently inexplicable then I might as well believe in magic, because that is the definition of magic... "inherently inexplicable".
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 09, 2011
Another problem is: If you _could_ have an explanation, then you always have the question remaining: "Why is this the explanation?"(i.e. you have at least one unexplained thing left). You can get infinitely recursive about this and never come to an end.


Exactly, but instead of an infinite linear string of causes I would imagine a causal loop with infinite regression... a causes b because b causes a because a causes b... I have no problem with the idea of an infinite reality (I hesitate to use the word universe, when I say it I mean all that exists, all of reality, but other people consider it a subset of the same).
CHollman82
1 / 5 (15) Nov 09, 2011
As with math: the fundamental aximoms always remain unproven (and unprovable)


Can you give me an example?
Seeker2
4.7 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
As with math: the fundamental aximoms always remain unproven (and unprovable)


Can you give me an example?


Interesting? - it took Russel and Whitehead 378 pages to prove 1 plus 1=2.
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (20) Nov 09, 2011
Interesting? - it took Russel and Whitehead 378 pages to prove 1 plus 1=2.


It's not necessary to prove that, it is defined. Mathematics is both invented and discovered. We invented the framework and then discovered properties of our invention. Mathematics has no meaning absent of conscious entities because mathematics requires classification. If I have a rock in my left hand and a rock in my right hand the only reason I can say "I have two rocks" is because I am able to classify the objects I hold as rocks, despite their unavoidable differences. The objects are not the same, they are not identical, so I don't have "2", I have one and I have the other... the only reason I can say I have "2" is because I have chosen to classify them based on their similarities while ignoring their differences. Only conscious entities are able to do that, absent of them there is no classification and there are no "counts" and there is no mathematics.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
You don't have to prove something to be true that we invented and defined to be true.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
There is nothing in the universe that is unique, at the very least things that you might call "identical" occupy different points in spacetime. Since there are no two truly identical "things" (which is also a human invented concept) you cannot count. If you cannot count there is no such thing as mathematics. Mathematics is based on counting, which requires classification. We invented classification, we invented counting, we invented the framework of mathematics. We discover properties of that invention that are not readily apparent.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 09, 2011
If I look into the woods and a bunch of tall wooden things who I am to refer to each one as a "tree"... they are all completely different. Where do I get the audacity to proclaim that their differences are unimportant and can be ignored so that I can refer to each of them with the same name?

I'll tell you where, because I am the one DEFINING the classification. It's my system and it goes by my rules... I invented those rules, and those invented rules allow me to count. Mathematics is utterly based on counts.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
I feel sorry for Russel and Whitehead, because they wasted their time. 1 plus 1 is 2 because we define it to be, these labels and relations are meaningless outside of our defined rules of classification.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
One more time:

Counting requires classification or there would be nothing to count as everything in the universe is unique. Counted values are given labels, we invent these labels. If you take a quantity of one thing and add it to a quantity of another thing you get the representation of a third quantity label... another label which we named. The result is DEFINED, 1 plus 1 is 2 because we defined it to be. "Proving it" is completely unnecessary... maybe that's why it took hundreds of pages of nonsense to do it.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2011
The last thirty inputs of commentary above to this comment are wonderful. In a way, because Seeker2 did not immediately connect the dots. As far as the last thirty comments are concern, there can be no greater tribute to a disconnect.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
There is no such thing as "two"...
Seeker2
5 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2011
CHollman82:
...You don't have to prove something to be true that we invented and defined to be true.

So truth is a matter of definition. I assume you're correct. Or maybe you're correct by definition and I don't have to make any assumptions?
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 09, 2011
CHollman82:
...You don't have to prove something to be true that we invented and defined to be true.

So truth is a matter of definition. I assume you're correct. Or maybe you're correct by definition and I don't have to make any assumptions?


What are you talking about? You didn't understand a thing I said did you? Universal truth is of course not just a matter of definition, but truth relative to a context that is entirely human defined is then a matter of definition.

There are different types of truths. Not all truths are universal, only truths absent of a context (or, if you prefer, in the universal context).

I suggest you reread and try to understand what I've said, because I don't think you do.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
CHollman82:
...I suggest you reread and try to understand what I've said, because I don't think you do.

Even more challenging would be trying to understand how you think.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
Even more challenging would be trying to understand how you think.


Perhaps. I think it's simple enough though. Stop me when you disagree...

1. Everything in the universe is unique, at the very least it occupies a unique point in spacetime.

2. If everything is unique and without classification you cannot count... everything would be 1.

3. Classification is a human invented concept and would not exist absent of conscious life.

4. Given 2 and 3, counting is a human invented concept.

5. Mathematics is based on counts.

6. Humans define the terms used to indicate each possible count (up to some reasonable limit, googolplex or something)

7. Addition is simply converting two separate counts into a third larger count. It can be done with anything we can classify in real life (rocks, trees, etc) and the result is simply another human defined count.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
8. To demonstrate that 1 and 1 is 2 all you have to do is take a count of one and another count of one and redefine your classification so that the objects of each are classified in the same category. The result is a count, a count that is defined to be represented by a given symbol...

It's all just counts and manipulating counts through redefinition of classifications... do you deny that we define what a given count is?
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
You might say "well we can count objects that aren't classified to be the same thing, if I had two cars and three birds and 5 trees I can count them and say the total is 10 objects"...

Of course, you just did exactly what I described, you reclassified counts of birds and cars and things into a single count of "objects".
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
The result of addition is defined, it doesn't require "proof"... Proofs in mathematics are used for demonstrating that some non-obvious relation is true (and by true I mean true in the human defined context of mathematics based on human defined counts which are based on human defined classifications)
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
The fact that this can be abstracted such that the number '8' doesn't HAVE to refer to a set of 8 objects of a given classification is irrelevant. Without classification the notion of more than a single entity would be meaningless. We can abstract it sure, but we would have never reached that point without initially referring to real physical objects that we grouped via classification.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 09, 2011
Addition is simply taking two groups that are classified differently and reclassifying them to be the same. In doing that you convert the counts of each group into another count of a newly defined group that encompasses both original groups ... but the count that results has already been defined. 2 is DEFINED as the result of taking a group of one and another group of 1 and reclassifying them into the same group.... that is what 2 means.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
If you want an answer to any question, ask the village idiot.
Yes, but what would be the point, OhMa'Tumor, when the answer is always "Neutron Repulsion!"
Seeker2
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2011
CHollman82:

You may be more into mathematical abstractions than physical entities, considering your reference to points in spacetime:

...1. Everything in the universe is unique, at the very least it occupies a unique point in spacetime.

Matter is formed of only about 92 naturally occuring elements. Yes they may occupy a unique (within the limits of the HUP) point in spacetime as long as they're not pulled into a black hole.
CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (21) Nov 09, 2011
Matter is formed of only about 92 naturally occuring elements. Yes they may occupy a unique (within the limits of the HUP) point in spacetime as long as they're not pulled into a black hole.


I don't believe in singularities. "Black holes" do not have infinite density.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 10, 2011
I love all 1 ratings from morons that won't even try to engage me in real debate.

Whoever gave me a one for that last post... which do you believe, Planck scales or infinite density singularities? You can't have it both ways... either the Planck length is the minimum length of meaningful differentiation or a black hole exists in an infinitely small area. Either way you're going against the current scientific understanding, because it is contradictory.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 10, 2011
Sorry, it's only 1 moron, and his name is orac, who has not made a single post. Cowardly.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2011
The loser's stepped it up to a whole new level now, created even more shill accounts to downrank all of my posts... It's amazing he doesn't realize that only he looks bad for doing this.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Try to suggest to the website masters a 'like' only rating. Analogous to YouTube only without the 'dislike'. I am not the first to bring this up.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2011
Simply post a mail to the moderators. I've had 'rating-stalkers' follow me around a few times. They (and their ratings) were removed quite quickly.

Once they find out that all their 'work' is for nothing they give up and go away.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
Good solution. What is the wording you used in your message to the moderators?

"I have a rating stalker. Please help"?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
That's basically it (though I didn't use the word 'rating stalker' as I just made that one up right now). Also explained that the poster in question seems to be created expressly for the purpose of downrating since he/she doesn't post.

In my cases I also had a good idea which poster had created the sock puppets (sock-puppetry being forbidden on this forum), so I gave them that info, too.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2011
Thanks for the suggestion but I think I'll pass. The current situation serves as important social commentary regarding the human condition. On a website who's primary focus is science and technology where you would expect the reader base to be mature, learned individuals there still exists this type of childish grade school nonsense. Is it human nature? Is it merely the failure of the particular individuals responsible or is it a potential for all of us under the right conditions? Either way it's as interesting to me as any of the articles posted here, as I have long wondered what makes irrational people so irrational. Half of my family are southern baptists, YEC's, fundamentalists, etc. and I think that influence has always made me curious of just how exactly people can think the way they do, maybe that and the childish mentalities expressed here somehow go hand in hand... Is it simply a lack of education, or a deep seeded psychological deviance from people like you and I?
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2011
...So, science and the Bible do not appear to be at odds.
...Science and religion are at odds like oil and water
...Why is it that there are always arguments between science and religion on articles such as these.

Vendicar_Decarian:
...Scientists know for certain.

If scientists know anything for certain, they know there is an uncertainty principle. Not just at the quantum level either. Finally. A true paradox?

...The Religionists on the other hand known nothing.

Except, perhaps, history, at least as far as what they've been told. Religion just doesn't pop up out of nowhere.

Anyway they seem to have a lot in common - believers. At least the scientists don't have to go to church every Sunday and recite their creed. They can just do it on the web.
CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2011
If scientists know anything for certain, they know there is an uncertainty principle. Not just at the quantum level either. Finally. A true paradox?


Once again you are confusing different types of knowledge and truth. Universal truth may not be knowable but truth relative to a defined context is absolutely knowable and scientists know a hell of a lot of these kind of truths.

Anyway they seem to have a lot in common - believers. At least the scientists don't have to go to church every Sunday and recite their creed. They can just do it on the web.


No, science is based on evidence backed belief, religion is based on faith in spite of evidence.
hush1
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Then read my answer to kevinrtrs:

http://www.physor...ble.html

I actually believe language 'self heals' irrationality.
I actually believe everyone is held 'captive' or 'hostage' to language - 'captive' and 'hostage' in a good sense. The greater your vocabulary, the greater the 'heeling' of irrationality.
An intrinsic, built-in 'error correction code' for detrimental human behavior. Cognition psychologists will throne me their 'fan boy' for such beliefs.
bluehigh
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2011
CHollman - as much as I don't like you and believe you are in fact Orac .. it would be annoying to contributors (like yourself) that value the ratings. So I might complain too. I'm being nice so take it graciously.

Now back to your comments ... are you on some kind of medication? Do actually believe any of the non-sense you spout? Who was it that said something like - advanced technology to those that do not understand will seem like magic? (or something like that).

bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
I actually believe everyone is held 'captive' or 'hostage' to language
- hush1

Edward de Bono and others often proposed that language constrains cognitive ability. In the sense that some types of conclusions are inevitable from the way language leads us. The other side of the coin is of course that we as humans are lucky to have language sophistication to able to think at all.

Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Do actually believe any of the non-sense you spout?
Do you actually have a problem with this statement of CHollman82?

No, science is based on evidence backed belief, religion is based on faith in spite of evidence.
If so you are simply not in touch with reality.

Science is a process intended to find out how the Universe works. For SOME people they think they have revealed knowledge and when science shows that knowledge wrong they most certainly have a problem with science. We have a lot posters here that constantly put down science and scientists for the simple reason that indeed their beliefs ARE incompatible with science.

Yes, it is possible to be religious and still accept science. But a very large percentage of the world's population, not just in the US, put disproved allegedly revealed knowledge over science and would just plain like all science to go away.

See Kevin for the ideal example but he is hardly the only one here.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
Once again you are confusing different types of knowledge and truth. Universal truth may not be knowable but truth relative to a defined context is absolutely knowable and scientists know a hell of a lot of these kind of truths.

Yes. This can be simply derived from information theory. For a string of bits (which is what you can reduce anything down to) to have information you have to have an 'alphabet' (i.e. a something that gives the individual sub units meaning)

This alphabet is the context and cannot be conveyed by the string of bits. So if we go to a system without context (i.e. the whole universe and anything it may be contained in) one cannot state any definitive things (truths) about it.
bluehigh
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2011
No, science is based on evidence backed belief, religion is based on faith in spite of evidence.
- CHollman

More correctly of late - Science is based on consensual empiricism - easy construed to be a set of beliefs. As I have said before, if you go talking to a layman about QM (or whatever advanced physics) and rant on about the facts and explain the math, you will get a blank look and only serve to convey the idea that you are no different from a pulpit preacher. The layman understands only that both are a matter of belief or faith beyond understanding.

What then in the'average' persons mind makes a Scientist any different from a pulpit preacher, when both are claiming to be holders of facts and truths?

Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
Edward de Bono and others often proposed that language constrains cognitive ability. In the sense that some types of conclusions are inevitable from the way language leads us.
Only they are not inevitable. Much of our thinking takes place outside of language for one thing. For another tools like logic and math give a way to go around limitations of language. In English you can just create new words or steal something appropriate from another language.

This is a case of someone having a useful insight that took it farther then the evidence supports. Seeing the boundaries of a language is difficult it is not impossible. I don't think you even have to be a bit strange like Kurt Gödel was to do it, though it probably helps.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
If so you are simply not in touch with reality.


Ethelred - its not me that's out of touch - its the multiple billions that choose to believe that science and religion are equally acts of faith because they simply don't understand. That's where religion wins because it does not require complex understandings for beneficial gain. Going to heaven (and maybe all those virgins waiting to be defiled) is just a matter of ritual observance. Easy. Where as coming to terms with advanced physics requires years of study and no happy ending. Hard.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
In English you can just create new words or steal something appropriate from another language.


Go ahead create a new word and somehow explain its meaning without using existing words or combinations thereof. Then have it accepted within a large group of people. Not so easy.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
Science is based on consensual empiricism
'Consensual' has become a magic word so a person can avoid dealing the concept of an objective reality.

The layman understands only that both are a matter of belief or faith beyond understanding.
Depends on what you call a layman. I don't have a degree. And I don't go on faith. True no one can understand everything. There isn't enough time. But that doesn't make using someone else's understanding the same as Revealed Knowledge that has failed test after test. I don't have the math for real QM but I can see that it works when others do the math.

What then in the'average' persons mind makes a Scientist any different from a pulpit preacher, when both are claiming to be holders of facts and truths?
You seem to be trying to make science into faith simply by pointing out that some people are ignorant. Yes some people are ignorant. That does not make my understanding mere faith.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
Go ahead create a new word and somehow explain its meaning without using existing words or combinations thereof.
Done it or rather things that are similar. It isn't easy. If you don't think it can be done try looking at calculus. TWO people invented new terms to deal with new concepts. Only one system of notation caught on and that was likely because Newton was lousy at choosing clean ways to deal with the ideas. They were in his head but he just HAD to write in Latin. And he did it to make it obscure. Then got pissed off because his system of notation did not catch on.

Then have it accepted within a large group of people. Not so easy.
It isn't needed that everyone understand it. Only the people involved need to.

HOWEVER I have used the phrase Vice President Mad Dog many times and everyone seems to understand who that is despite never have seen the phrase before. Language is not learned only by memorizing definitions.

Ethelred
CHollman82
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2011
Now back to your comments ... are you on some kind of medication? Do actually believe any of the non-sense you spout?.


Do you have a specific criticism of any of my statements that you would like to discuss?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Depends on what you call a layman.


Ethelred - you full well know what I mean and its not about your understanding. When discussing science, its about billions of people not seeing that it works for them. I don't need to try and make science an act of faith for the ignorant, its just the way it is. Problem is that large numbers of ignorant people choose to believe in a different faith - religion. Stomping around demanding that science is more reasonable than religion does not help convert anyone.

Education helps but not in the form that CHollman spouts, it just comes across as arrogant dogma.

CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2011
What then in the'average' persons mind makes a Scientist any different from a pulpit preacher, when both are claiming to be holders of facts and truths?


You're right, the 'average' person is not intelligent enough to be a judge of what is true and what is not... the problem is they think they are. The problem with most people is not what they don't know, it's that they have no idea the sheer magnitude of things they don't know that others do. Most people hear the word "physics" and think of the equivalent of the tip of an iceberg and are completely unaware that the mass of knowledge beneath the surface even exists.
bluehigh
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2011
and the source of that variance is inherently inexplicable then I might as well believe in magic, because that is the definition of magic... "inherently inexplicable".
-CHollman

Arthur C. Clarke - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Do you have a specific criticism of any of my statements that you would like to discuss?
-Chollman

Yes - just because YOU don't understand or can't explain something, does not make it any less real to those that do.

and - its only 'Skeptic'in North America. The majority of the English speaking world spell the word 'Sceptic'. See other thread. Crikey, you are arrogant beyond belief.

CHollman82
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2011
and the source of that variance is inherently inexplicable then I might as well believe in magic, because that is the definition of magic... "inherently inexplicable".
-CHollman

Arthur C. Clarke - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


Do you know what the word inherently means? Also, I don't think Clarke meant to say that advanced technology IS magic...

Do you have a specific criticism of any of my statements that you would like to discuss?
-Chollman

Yes - just because YOU don't understand or can't explain something, does not make it any less real to those that do.


Please tell me what you think I don't understand.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2011
Unfortunately you don't like me solely because you don't understand me...

You think that when I said that "I might as well believe in magic" it was due to my inability to understand something... it was not. If reality is not deterministic then there is an INHERENTLY (look up the word if you don't know it) inexplicable (look up that one to) source of variance... that is the definition of magic, an inherently inexplicable phenomenon.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Much quicker if I make a list of what I think you DO understand ..

There is hope a 5 for you for this -

Most people hear the word "physics" and think of the equivalent of the tip of an iceberg and are completely unaware that the mass of knowledge beneath the surface even exists.


Now - how to help the people without preaching?

Goodnight.

bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2011
Unfortunately you don't like me solely because you don't understand me...


More often because you have a closed mind to others suggestions and insist on your correctness. Tolerance and humility are signs of wisdom .. yeah, I need some too.

2:50AM
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
Ethelred - you full well know what I mean and its not about your understanding.
Not really. I think you aren't being very clear here. Or rather you keep contradicting yourself.

Stomping around demanding that science is more reasonable than religion does not help convert anyone.
I am not trying to convert here. This about what the hell your point is.

Education helps but not in the form that CHollman spouts, it just comes across as arrogant dogma.
He comes across to me as young and angry.

Arthur C. Clarke - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Sometimes pithy remarks don't really have mean a lot. That is one of them. He hung out on Shri Lanka to long.

Yes - just because YOU don't understand or can't explain something, does not make it any less real to those that do.
Actually I think he does understand the religious point of view. He seems to have had a recent change view and resents the ignorance he had foisted on him.>>
Ethelred
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
The majority of the English speaking world spell the word 'Sceptic'. See other thread. Crikey, you are arrogant beyond belief.
A lot of the world is speaking American not English. Live with it.

However I give you this as gift. My spelling sucks so:

Little things for little minds.

And if your are REALLY annoyed with the pedant.

Yours must be tiny indeed.

That REALLY torques them off.

Ethelred
CHollman82
1 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2011
Actually I think he does understand the religious point of view. He seems to have had a recent change view and resents the ignorance he had foist on him


Partly, though it wasn't all that recent. Mostly what bothers me is I have loved ones (young sisters) who were indoctrinated into the mental disorder of young earth creationism when I fancy myself a science buff... (I'm a software engineer but if I hadn't gone into CS I would have gone into some branch of physics)
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2011
CHollman82:
...my assertion that the big bang is an event through which no information was preserved

In fact per the CMBR 99.9% of information about the shape and probably the magnitude of the U before the BB is passed on to our cycle. The BB introduces 0.1% random fluctuations in the patterns we see, assuring that our cycle is unique (therefore not completely deterministic). For example we can see through non-random patterns in the CMBR that the universe is flat. One cosmologist even claims to see images of the collapsing U before the BB in the CMBR.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
cont...
Yes I suppose the cyclic U may be a setback for creationism. Not that I have anything against it, but I'm also beginning to suspect, as some (probably most) cosmologists think, that the total energy of the U is 0, which could be a setback for the black magic theories (I originally spelled it majic but Mr. Wiki didn't like that). This is a flip-flop from a previous post if I remember correctly, so I'll try to find it and explain. Note I've had Hawking's new book on reserve from the library for many months. I'm still hoping.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
Go ahead create a new word and somehow explain its meaning without using existing words or combinations thereof.

Have you 'googled' lately?

More often because you have a closed mind to others suggestions and insist on your correctness.

...this is so precious coming from someone who preaches faith.

Oh, the irony. It is almost too much to bear.

If you don't see the self-contradiction here then you are truly blind
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
...this is so precious coming from someone who preaches faith.


I do what? When? - No faith preaching in my comments, only drawing parallels with the attitude of many scientists compared with many religious leaders - zealots.

Perhaps you mean my recent comments about - 'You don't have to believe in God but God believes in you'. Funny that caused a large amount of hate mail even though intended to be sarcastic and get a rise out of Ethelred (which it did). I thought it funny, apologies if it offended your sensibilities.

Oh God, wheres my breakfast and coffee! 'I help those that help themselves' - comes the booming reply.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Now go ahead and explain what 'Google' or 'Googled' means without using existing language.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
Why the artificial and utter fake requirement of not using existing language? What you are demanding is a fake challenge with a requirement that has absolutely nothing to do with getting new ideas across.

However Google is hardly the only new word, that was created without using definitions, indeed it is NOT a new word, it is an old word with a new meaning. The meaning that it now has came entirely via use and context and was NOT created by defining in older words.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Ethelred - you can take it up with de Bono and others. I simply agreed with hush1
I actually believe everyone is held 'captive' or 'hostage' to language
and pointed out that this concept has been explored in some detail in literature for anyone seeking further info. I concede.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
I fully agree with the concept as a problem. The only thing I don't agree that we are captive of our language, as we can work around it in a number of ways.

Though I do sometimes just what languages Hush1 translates from and to. Sure hope it isn't English.

Ethelred
hush1
4 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2011
If you are raised bi- or multilingual, then you do not translate.
I do not know a concept that makes sense to monolingual.

Monolinguals have to have imagination. And imagine the additional sounds (which all languages are) they add to sounds already stored in their minds is handled no differently from the first sounds that formed their language.

I am mono-linguistic. Pure chance arranged the sounds I was first exposed to during childhood to 'cover' what you label 'two languages'.

The underlying, universal, denominator for all human languages is sound. No one can change the 'rules'(physics) of sound.
Your language is music. The instrument (language)you use determines the scope of your knowledge and understanding.
That is what I mean when I say 'captive' or 'hostage'.
You only understand a whole orchestra, when you can play all the players' instruments. The analogy is fair.

And now comes an most astonishing revelation...
cont...
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2011
I am a Wittgenstein fan boy:
"The limits of your languages are the limits of your world."

This is no longer true. I realize this.
When you realize the sources and origins of all human languages is only ONE source and has only ONE origin - sound - the Wittgenstein adage no longer holds true. Why?

The 'stuff' out of which your languages are made of is unlimited.
Sound has unlimited expressions. And sound is language. Language, as sound, is unlimited. That determines the limit of your worlds. Your worlds are unlimited.

Independent of how many sounds you know or how many instruments you play, your world never had limits.

All you need is to grant yourselves permission to say you live in a world with no limits. I will vouch for you.



hush1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2011
The ratings for me are from orac.
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2011
CHollman82:
...my assertion that the big bang is an event through which no information was preserved

In fact per the CMBR 99.9% of information about the shape and probably the magnitude of the U before the BB is passed on to our cycle.


Uhh... you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

lol.
bluehigh
1.3 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2011
All you need is to grant yourselves permission to say you live in a world with no limits. I will vouch for you.


I accept and value your assurance. Although I tend to recognize the psychology from sometime, there is much to like of the word music you play, it brings me a sense of peace.

kudos @ hush1

Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2011
CHollman82
...event through which no information was preserved

What? I'm talking about real world physics not black magic.

CHollman82
1 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2011
CHollman82
...event through which no information was preserved

What? I'm talking about real world physics not black magic.



You need to stop trying to talk about physics. I doubt you even understand what I mean by "information" in that sentence.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
What makes a discourse religious is when it claims an authority that is believed to transcend the human, temporary and contingent, and claims for itself a similarly transcendent status. Without anyone necessarily intending that to happen, I suggest that for many a belief in science has slipped into that category.

Read more: http://www.smh.co...dglcEkNO
CHollman82
1 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2011
What makes a discourse religious is when it claims an authority that is believed to transcend the human, temporary and contingent, and claims for itself a similarly transcendent status. Without anyone necessarily intending that to happen, I suggest that for many a belief in science has slipped into that category.


I don't understand how... science as a methodology is the antithesis of what you describe.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
Read more: http://www.smh.co...dglcEkNO
Oh goody an unbiased source. So brilliant of you to consider that one Bluehigh. Will you next quote Ken Ham?

Barney Zwartz is religion editor of The Age


thats not to say there are no reasons for belief, which I could not concede, but that religious commitment does not depend purely on reasons).
I have yet to any answer to the question 'Why believe' that was based on reason.

He talks of the "Central Doctrine of science": "all properties and events in the physical universe are governed by laws, and those laws are true at every time and place in the universe.
This is because it is a waste of time assuming otherwise. Because you can't anywhere if you don't.

But of course, as Lightman admits, this cannot be proved. It is, as I said, a leap of faith.
Its what he says because he goes on belief. I go on reason so the actual REASON for this is because if you assume otherwise you won't get anywhere.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
Now, more committed atheists may resent that terminology, but that doesnt alter its truth.
This Agnostic doesn't resent. Its just wrong. It won't become true just he claims it.

playwright and director Alan Brody, offers this explanation: Theatre has always been about religion. I am talking about the beliefs that we live by. And science is the religion of the 21st century."
Well that is also false. First theatre has NOT always been about religion and anyone competent in the field should know that. Where is the religion in Shakespeare. Definitely isn't in George Bernard Shaw. So this guy's opinions are worthless.

is still one discourse among many and there are questions beyond its ken.
Not really. The rest is just philosophy. If science can't test it isn't based on the real world. Its based on stories people tell each other.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
He agrees with scientists such as Francis Collins and Ian Hutchinson, who are Christians, that science is not the only avenue to knowledge
Knowledge of stories. Not the way the Universe works. Fiction or philosophy not facts.

The humanities, such as history and philosophy, raise questions that do not have definite or unanimously accepted answers.
That is because they are not based real world facts. Just suppositions and stories that may or may not be true.

But artists and humanists often don't care what the answer is because definite answers don't exist to all interesting and important questions
That is because there are no answers. Just opinions. And in this case the opinions of the writer is not based on facts but his religious beliefs.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
Lightman eventually offers a theory of reconciliation whereby religion and science can co-exist if the religion involves a non-interventionist deity who does not enter the natural realms that are the subject of science. I haven't room to explore that now.
I don't think he wants to because its true and his religious beliefs include a Christian god. Jehovah intervened a lot according to the Bible.

As I have argued before, humans have to see their lives in some sort of narrative
He mistakes his needs for everyones.

In the absence of a theistic narrative, science has filled the hole for many people.
I don't have religious hole. He does.

Without anyone necessarily intending that to happen, I suggest that for many a belief in science has slipped into that category.
I can't help if HE has done that. I sure haven't.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
Bluehigh you are trying to force ALL of science into a religious box because a few people are pigheaded and don't understand science. Including that RELIGIOUS writer. I am beginning to suspect you don't either.

CHollman82 may understand science. Its his emotional reactions to religion that are his problem. But that doesn't make science a religion even for him. Sure doesn't for me.

Note about odd posting problems:

I just figured out why I am sometimes greeted with a yellow BAD CODE screen. Turns out to be from the APOSTROPHE marks for quotes and in this case contractions such as 'DONT' were there is no apostrophe in the quotes. Replacing them with standard ASCII takes care of it.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Ethelred, I posted it just for you.

As for both of you suggesting this represents my view, you are just shooting the messenger. I contribute this argument so that you may understand something more of the opposing views.

Yes, I know you both have strong opinions on the role science but its worth noting how others perceive science because then you might be able to convey your message more effectively.

you are trying to force


With scientists presenting as righteous, haranguing zealots, science shoots itself in the foot without my help or did you miss the point.

because a few people are pigheaded and don't understand science.
- Ethelred

Its not a few people - its the vast majority of people that don't understand science (to the depth required to differentiate it from an act of faith).

It is this perception of science among the so called ignorant that concerns me, as I have mentioned previously.

bluehigh
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2011
science as a methodology is the antithesis of what you described
-CHollman

I do not see that I described anything. I quoted from an article to highlight a point view. I made that clear with a link to the article, of which Ethelred very graciously took the time to read.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
omatumr:
...Don't be too harsh.
Big Bang is "scientific" creation for wannabe scientists with limited reasoning ability.

And you're telling me not to be too harsh? Actually they may have a point in the collapsing U. When the dark energy runs out spacetime will have nothing to support it. There will be no uncertainty because there is nothing to power the uncertainty principle. The U will become deterministic, with an outer shell of positrons and an inner shell of electrons. When spacetime collapses the shells interact like a giant bolt of lightning, returning electrostatic energy to radiation. Spacetime is again inflated and as it expands and cools some radiation condenses and forms matter.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
All this assumes positrons are repelled by anti-gravity into an outer shell like a positive electrode and electrons are collected in an inner space like a negative electrode. I think it's also likely that the Planck constant varies directly with the dark energy. This would affect redshift calculations and the age of the U.

As the U expands positrons accumulate in the outer regions as a positive electrode, matter is turned to radiation, and electrons accumulate in the form of an inner negative electrode, separated by radiation and spacetime. When the DE runs out (actually transformed into electrostatic potential energy) radiation no longer has any energy, regardless of wavelength. The lights go out, the temperature drops to near zero, and spacetime collapses untill the electrodes come into contact and current begins to flow and produce radiation.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
As spacetime deflates the positrons could be viewed as forming a ring singularity and the electrons a point singularity. So I take back all that talk about no singularities. Sorry to be talking about physics again. Ah feels your pain.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
Seeker2 that was a stunning exercise in handwaving. Truly stunning. Are your arms tired.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
As for both of you suggesting this represents my view, you are just shooting the messenger.


With scientists presenting as righteous, haranguing zealots, science shoots itself in the foot without my help or did you miss the point.
This statements looks much like a contradiction of the first statement. And I am fully aware that some have this delusion possibly based on a few individuals of which even less are guilty as charged. PRESENTED is not the same as presenting. You are mistaking propaganda for reality.

Dawkins for instance is a favorite for the Creationist crowd to lie about.

I contribute this argument so that you may understand something more of the opposing views.
I am fully aware of it. Nice to see you are catching up. Only you seem to be buying into the propaganda.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2011
Its not a few people - its the vast majority of people that don't understand science (to the depth required to differentiate it from an act of faith).
Not my fault, nor that of scientists. Ignorance is curable. Lies like that article should be disputed not spread as if they were a reflection of reality instead being propaganda.

It is this perception of science among the so called ignorant that concerns me, as I have mentioned previously.
Well it would help if you weren't acting as if propaganda wasn't exactly that. That link was propaganda. Exactly like the Discovery Institute suggests. Push the bullshit. Brand the opposition as even less reasonable than they are. Lie cheat and steal, as they want government funding of their religion in schools, steal is a correct statement.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2011
Seeker2 that was a stunning exercise in handwaving. Truly stunning. Are your arms tired.

Ethelred

Hand waving over your head, apparently. Sorry.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
Right. Of course. I see.

I think it's also likely that the Planck constant varies directly with the dark energy.
No one has a clue what if anything Dark Energy is and you think the Plank varies with it.

Now that may accidentally be right but will only be by accident as neither you or anyone knows bleeps about DE except that it might exist.

When the dark energy runs out spacetime will have nothing to support it.
If DE is actually real that still does not follow since it may be a fixed unit per unit of space time and thus could not run out.

You are engaged in rampant speculating based on rampant speculation and besides positrons have positive energy and thus the same relation to gravity as electrons. That isn't handwaving as it fits the math for GR with gravity having negative energy. Yes that my idea but it does seem to fit the basics of gravity.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
I understand the case for dark energy is accelerated spacetime expansion. Acceleration requires force. Force acting over a distance does work. Work requires energy. That energy comes from the dark energy, now 73% of the universe's energy budget as I understand. I assume the accelerated expansion is therefore 27% complete and it won't last forever because energy just doesn't pop up out of nowhere unless you believe in black magic.

It's like dark energy is the bank. It's going to require payback and that occurs when spacetime collapses. The gravity-antigravity theory is postulated as a means of polarizing the U with positrons and electrons and recreating radiation and inflating spacetime at the BB.