Iamon lyme: Different matter.

"that little tidbit about the sun is all I needed (on top of what you've already said) for me to understand what or who you believe God is."

Then explain what you understand, or think you do.

"There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory."

But there is now, it was even taught when I was at school in the 70's studying 'O' level physics... Does it matter??

Rather now, it's more of a process... including parts that break the normal rules of physics (re lightspeed.. the universe can expand faster than it) ...anti matter/matter annihilation, clumping of hydrogen causing the first stars to form... and then die giving birth to the heavier elements we all are made of.

It's a beautifully simple process on the large scale :))

(V): "Then explain what you understand, or think you do."

Why? If I'm right or wrong, either way it doesn't matter. I've been asking you questions because I didn't understand your position. I even told you that was what I was doing, so what's the problem? Was I not supposed to understand?


"There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory."

"But there is now, it was even taught when I was at school in the 70's studying 'O' level physics... Does it matter??"

It mattered a thousand years ago, when there was no empirical evidence to prove the universe began to exist. Up until the last century the second statement was hotly debated and the focus of controversy. But even after being proven true by scientific evidence, the kalam argument is still being debated. Why? No one had previously argued against the first statement, so what's left to debate?

The first and second statements can be debated, and the second has been proven true by science, so that only leaves the first statement open to criticism. There's no point in arguing with the third statement, because it is only a conclusion derived from the first two.

Iamon lyme: Quid pro quo I thought being a reason enough.

"Was I not supposed to understand?"

No.. But in explaining your "typing" you explain yourself. Like you've just stated you like to divide ... ie create "legion" according to some interpretations.

"It mattered a thousand years ago, when there was no empirical evidence to prove the universe began to exist. Up until the last century the second statement was hotly debated and the focus of controversy."

I think you ought to realise that this argument about cause and effect dates back to earlier times. The early Christian fathers were certainly 'learned' in such thinking since the likes of Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) postulated such in the FOUR causes, answers to one question.... "why?".

Never heard of the kalam argument before.

Btw... the time to Red Giant is about 5-7 billion years for our star.... when that hits, the Earth is screwed. Granted the death of our sun is a few billion years later, but if we are still around, we have to have flown the nest.

... In recent UK news it has emerged that several supermarkets have been selling beef burgers that contain horse meat.... upto 30% in some cases. There is no food safety concerns, just that of mislabelling. All the supermarkets involved were using the same supplier based in Ireland, which has resulted in several million burgers being removed from UK stores.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f2_1358454345


.. I have asked one of the supermarkets (Tesco's) to answer when they would be getting more burgers soon, and how much horse meat would they contain... The last lot just wasn't lean enough, too much beef!! :))

I've also proposed a new recipe for them.... Soylent Green. It's much more palatable then the previous Red and Yellow versions I've experimented with, better nutrition also :))

(V): "I think you ought to realise that this argument about cause and effect dates back to earlier times. The early Christian fathers were certainly 'learned' in such thinking since the likes of Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) postulated such in the FOUR causes, answers to one question.... "why?".

Never heard of the kalam argument before."


I've seen a few thumbnail sketches of the history of this argument. They don't agree on all points, but it's safe to assume it started with a response to Aristotles belief that the universe is eternal. The "kalam" started with early Christian thinkers, then Jewish and Islamic theologians. The one thing these three all have in common is the universe and everything in it being created by (one) God. It was an Islamic scholar who is credited with formalising this argument, hence the Islamic origins of the name (kalam).

But even without the idea of a God, there is still controversy over this because of what a first cause would have to be in order for a universe to arise from nothing. Aristotles eternal universe is equivalent to our steady state universe theory, and the creation story is equivalent to the big bang theory. The debate between a steady state universe and the big bang was hotly debated for the same reason the kalam was debated... one points towards the existence of a God, the other points away from the universe needing a God.

(V): "Btw... the time to Red Giant is about 5-7 billion years for our star.... when that hits, the Earth is screwed. Granted the death of our sun is a few billion years later, but if we are still around, we have to have flown the nest."

I'm sorry to hear your god is disinterested in this problem. Or too wimpy to do anything about it.

(V): "the time to Red Giant is about 5-7 billion years for our star.... when that hits, the Earth is screwed."

Perhaps in that time we will have evolved bigger brains, and sturdier necks for carrying the extra load. With more brain power we might be able to solve the problem of where to go and how to get there. SETI is a good first step toward finding intelligent life somewhere else, so we can apply for residency on a habitable planet. But we can't depend on being welcome just because we find a good place to live. Besides, the odds of finding such a place by sending out intergallactic inquires is very remote, because there are few if any other systems in our gallaxy cabable of supporting life... in fact, the chance of finding any within our gallaxy is probably next to zero, so we need to look at other spiral galaxies for habital zones. There are two other types of galaxies, eliptical and one other (I forgot the name) but niether of those will do because of density problems and the inability of any star to remain in a clear zone with a circular galactic orbit. The circular orbit of our star prevents it from crossing over into one of the two spiral arms we are conveniently located between, in a relatively clear zone of space. The spirals are danger zones for the same reason the central bulk of our gallaxy is a danger zone... too much radiation.

Yep.... we will definitely need bigger brains, no doubt about it.

Iamon lyme: As far as I remember the initial discussion were nothing like the Kalam stuff you are quoting. Rather...

"From his considerations of the nature of motion in Physics, in Book 8, Aristotle concludes that there must be a logically first unmoved mover in order to explain all other motion. In Physics 8.1, he argues that motion is eternal. Motion cannot begin without the prior existence of something to impart motion in another thing, so that there will always be something in motion, since something at rest cannot cause motion in another thing. In addition, if motion were not eternal, then time would not have always existed, since time is the measure of motion; but, according to Aristotle, no one would be willing to say that time has not always been in existence. Nor can motion cease, since to do so something must cause it to cease, but then the thing that caused motion to cease would require something to cause its cessation and the process would continue ad infinitum. Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" (252b 6-8). Aristotle also objects to the idea that motion may have begun self-caused; he points out that, in those things in which motion is said to be "self-caused," in fact, there is a part of the thing that is already in motion and imparts motion to the whole. Self-caused means that motion is not imparted from without but from some part of the whole that is already in motion. In such cases, the motion of the part that moves the other parts of a things requires a mover.

Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) According to Aristotle, all movable things are only potentially in motion, and require something else to act upon them in order to be set in motion: "So it is clear that in all these cases the thing does not move itself, but it contains within itself the source of motion—not of moving something or of causing motion, but of suffering it." (Physics 8.4; 255b 29-31). Thus, if there were no unmoved mover, there could be no motion, because a moved mover requires a cause of its own motion and no infinite regress is possible. In Physics 8.6, Aristotle argues that, since motion is both eternal and necessary, the first mover must be equally eternal and necessary. Because those things involved in the eternal and continuous process of motion are not eternal and necessary, since they come into being and perish, there must be one or many eternal and necessary thing or things outside the process of motion that imparts or impart motion to the things in motion. This is the only way that there could be any motion, for non-eternal and contingent movers cannot explain all motion, because their own coming into existence needs a cause. He explains, "There is something that comprehends them all, and that as something apart from each one of them, and this it is that is the cause of the fact that some things are and others are not and of the continuous process of change" (Physics 259a 3-5). It is not possible to explain eternal motion by postulating a plurality of unmoved movers capable of imparting motion but that do not exist eternally, for "There must clearly be something that causes things that move themselves at one time to be and at another time not to be" (Physics 258b 21). Aristotle determines that there is only one unmoved mover, not only because many unmoved movers are unnecessary, but because only one mover could produce a continuous motion, in the sense of being an interconnected system of causes and effects. Moreover, since it is continuous, motion is one; one effect requires a single cause, so that the unmoved mover must also be one. He concludes that an unmoved mover causing eternal motion must likewise be eternal (Physics 260a 1-2)."

>>>>Warning in depth research into this carries a standard headache alert, and advises a pint of beer to relax the brain cells. <<<<

Iamon lyme: Did I say that... No.

Do I presume there is no means for us to survive.... No.

Eggs in nests have a natural ability to be able to leave as they grow.

" because there are few if any other systems in our gallaxy cabable of supporting life... in fact, the chance of finding any within our gallaxy is probably next to zero,"

That is incorrect. The evidence now through the likes of the Kepler telescope is that there are many places we could live in this Galaxy. The evidence is that Mars once did have life, Just it lost it's magnetic field... well, most of it.

Dude... dem boffins are blowing most previously held theories about how rare planets such as ours are.. they are not so rare. The Universe is geared to create the necessary elements we need for physical existence.

(V): Horse meat! I would not like that. Horses are pets (well sort of - maybe more like family). It's like eating one's dog. IMHO

(V): with dark beer

(V): [ Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" ]

But then he says...

[ Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) ]

How can an infinite regress be impossible if "there never was a time when there was not motion"?

He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events. I don't know how, because if "there never was a time when there was not motion" then there never was a starting point, which means there must be an infinite number of past events. His argument is self defeating, unless we are able to factor in how an unmoved mover can be the starting point for something that never started because "there never was a time when there was not motion".

(V): Aristotle believed both the universe and the unmoved mover are eternal. The kalam argument acknowledges an eternal unmoved mover, but not an eternal universe.

(V): "Dude... dem boffins are blowing most previously held theories about how rare planets such as ours are.. they are not so rare."

Theories previously held by who? Scientists in the past believed there might have been life on the moon, based on observations made from looking through telescopes. As time has gone by the odds of there being many inhabitable planets has not increased, it's been decreasing. It's not simply a matter of how close a planet is to a sun and how much water is present.

"The Universe is geared to create the necessary elements we need for physical existence."

The presence of elements needed for life are not uniform throughout the universe. Some areas contain the heaviest elements but few if any of the lighter ones. And some areas have the lighter ones but not enough of the heavier ones. We just happen to live in a system that has the full range of essential elements. And carbon is still the only viable candidate for being a basic element for life, because of the carbon atoms unique ability to build large enough molecules for the wide variety of molecular machines and other structures (including the DNA package) in cells. So you can't just go anywhere in the universe that has enough water and hope to find lots and lots of inhabitable planets. It's much more complicated than that. And BTW, most suns the size of ours burn out much faster than ours will... because our sun has just the right mix of materials to keep it going for more than 2 or 3 billion years.

Iamon lyme: and I wonder who geared it?

Artful Dodger: We eat other farm yard animals, and they are more that than pets. Dog though is a step too far.... alot of work butchering for such a small return!! ;P

(V): Yeah, I like chicken. Besides they poop everywhere and deserve to be eaten. For that matter, I should eat my dogs then.

Artful Dodger: "and I wonder who geared it?"

These debates always seem to come back to the same question: Is it a "who done it" or a "what done it". Aristotles unmoved mover almost appears to be an afterthought, a sort of work around for overcoming infinite regress. But I don't think that is what Aristotle had in mind. I think the unmoved mover was something to overcome the problem with entropy, because that's all it really does. It can't make an infinite number of past events go away after asserting motion has always existed.


I blew out a brain cell last night, so am waiting for a replacement... the other one still works but I don't want to overtax it.

Iamon lyme: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

done

there, that was easy. I could have saved Ari a lot of time and though energy!

Artful Dodger: "I could have saved Ari a lot of time and thought energy!"

Yeah, but if he hadn't spent all that time and thought energy he would have been out of a job. Besides, if centuries of analysis eventually lead back to "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", then it's not really a waste of time or energy. If faith is based on evidence and logic then it can't be called "blind" faith.

I wasted some time and energy because I assumed an infinite regression meant traversing the infinite. It was a bone head mistake, but at least I figured out what Ari was actually talking about... well, maybe I figured it out. I think he was saying an infinite regression 'of power' is impossible, so an unmoved mover is needed to keep the motion ball rolling.

Iamon lyme: Not sure...That's kinda getting into high end ideas of singularities and pure energy.. not even the scientists are sure at this level, as it is the realm of quantum events.

"unless we are able to factor in how an unmoved mover can be the starting point for something that never started because "there never was a time when there was not motion"."

There... time. At the starting point.. what was time? Did it exist as we know it??

"As time has gone by the odds of there being many inhabitable planets has not increased, it's been decreasing. It's not simply a matter of how close a planet is to a sun and how much water is present."

No. Wild Victorian rumours of Men in the Moon, Mutants on Venus, etc.. were just wild rumours. I'm talking now. In the last 20-30 years, and so much definite proof in the last 0-5 thanks to the likes of Kepler and new techniques in allowing for atmospheric disruption for ground based telescopes.

"The presence of elements needed for life are not uniform throughout the universe. Some areas contain the heaviest elements but few if any of the lighter ones. And some areas have the lighter ones but not enough of the heavier ones."

I know... it was that variation that created the first stars. The recent analysis shows that galaxies themselves seem to clump in ribbons and clusters through out the universe.

"And carbon is still the only viable candidate for being a basic element for life, because of the carbon atoms unique ability to build large enough molecules for the wide variety of molecular machines and other structures"

And carbon is produced alot by stars as they start dying.... .... 13 billion years.....

"And BTW, most suns the size of ours burn out much faster than ours will.."

No.. most suns bigger than ours burn out quickly, especially the really big ones.

Dude... you need to take a look at some current youtube vids on physics and particularly stellar physics. The stuff they taught us as kids is out of date!!

Artful Dodger: Make a good stew. I'm waiting to hear if McD's get caught up in this mess. They do state that they get much of their beef from Ireland. :P

Iamon lyme: Do not read anything by Origen then. lol

Could be a wall event, where you need to bang your head against one!! :))

Iamon lyme: All I know is I hope I don't experience infinite regression. But I think I'm on my way to a finite one.

(V): "No.. most suns bigger than ours burn out quickly, especially the really big ones."

Size isn't the only factor. What I said was most suns the size of ours burn out more quickly because of stellar content. We have a very metal rich sun compared to most others of the SAME size. I wasn't comparing our sun to larger or smaller ones. And BTW, I don't know if this is relevant or not but our sun is among the top 10% of the largest stars in our galaxy.


"The stuff they taught us as kids is out of date!!"

Well no kidding! And probably more out of date when I was a kid than for you, but I'm not talking about what we were taught as kids.


And I wasn't talking about wild rumors of life on the moon either. I was referring to speculation among scientists (yes, actual scientists) about life possibly existing on the moon based on observations of the lunar surface indicating the presence of water. If you want to call that "wild rumors", then what would you call speculation of life on Mars because the surface indicates the presence of water?

(V): I would not love it if my Big Mac was named after some horse! If McDs served horse meat and it was discovered, Burger King stock would rise. Unless they used some of the Old Grey Mare too.

I suppose if I were hungry enough though I'd even eat a Rocky Mountain oyster!

Artful Dodger: I think that was the point of not allowing us to live forever. If not for death we could have ended up looking like puddles of goo, with two eyeballs looking up and pleading with God to kill us.

Iamon lyme: Awww drat! I did it again! I'm getting ahead of myself... The metal content has nothing to do with lifespan, it has to do with a star system having enough of the heavy elements for creating an earth type planet. Our sun is expected to last a total of about 10 billion years, burning hydrogen steadily on its main sequence... so in this case it IS size that matters.

"Metal" content was about another point I wanted to make, how not just any old star or star system is able to have life just because a star is the right size or has the right luminosity. Drake and Sagan beamed a message to a large concentration of stars called globular cluster M13. The theory was because there are lots of stars in that region there was a higher probability of communicating with intelligent life.

Fat chance of that happening, since globular clusters are the worst places to go looking for life. They are among the most ancient things in the universe, which means their stars have a very low abundance of heavy elements... they're made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. The heavier elements are needed for building terrestrial planets. In globular clusters you are more likely to find only dust or grains or maybe boulders, but nothing like an Earth type planet that can serve as a platform for life to exist (much less develop). But here's the kicker, at the time Drake and Sagan sent their message this was already known.

Iamon lyme: Not so nice towards the end period.



"I don't know if this is relevant or not but our sun is among the top 10% of the largest stars in our galaxy."

No... If it was bigger then it would be a factor. Jupiter is more relevant I feel in it's cleansing ability.

"If you want to call that "wild rumors", then what would you call speculation of life on Mars because the surface indicates the presence of water?"

.... Mars is a nearly planet. From what I'm seeing now it is very probable it did have life. But with no magnetic field the sun killed it. They say an object like our moon did circle Mars but it appears to have crashed into the planet, when it was there.. Mars could have started to form organic life.

"But here's the kicker, at the time Drake and Sagan sent their message this was already known."

PR stunt.. like putting a record on the Voyagers.

"Because it will take 25,000 years for the message to reach its intended destination of stars (and an additional 25,000 years for any reply), the Arecibo message was more a demonstration of human technological achievement than a real attempt to enter into a conversation with extraterrestrials. In fact, the stars of M13, that the message was aimed at, will no longer be in that location when the message arrives.[1] According to the Cornell News press release of November 12, 1999, the real purpose of the message was not to make contact, but to demonstrate the capabilities of newly installed equipment."

Artful Dodger: Or they could be using donkey meat. It appears many European salamis/sausages may contain donkey... ... ... I'm doing a chicken stew today. Starting from a whole fresh chicken being de-boned and cut up by myself.

.... Our local butchers trade is picking up!! ;P

Iamon lyme: We'd run out of room. People would get bored.. dangerous combination.

(V): I'll be there in 30 hours. Save me some!

Blimey... allotment wars... where sabotage, kidnapping, feuds and midnight breaking in of sheds so 'tramps' can have a nice snooze on the sofa with scented candles.

ok.. the kidnapping was a lock in so the 'committee' could get there way and evict a plot holder as he had questioned their authority and won.

... The guys plot was perfect for pumpkins.. 1st place being worth more than £1.50!!

(V):

David Cameron is showing signs that he is not confident that he'll(his party) is capable of winning at the next election.

The conservative leader has stated "he is commitment to hold a referendum on the UK's future in Europe if he wins the next election." .... The UKIP party is stealing votes over the UK's involvement in the EU and our treaties as such. Mainly because the conservatives and labour parties were not willing to do anything, it being good jobs for the boys as EMP's.

It's like the US states arguing with da feds. Mostly just for show.

(V): Show? Sorry, but it was INTENDED that the states have more power than the federal govt.

rod03801: Intentions... Well, that says it all.

As I said..... show.

Are you freezing? Join the crowd. Arctic air is sweeping across Canada. Snow and ice are wreaking havoc on Britain. Russians are dying from the cold. And Germans are sneaking into forests to cut down trees because their fuel bills are so high.

Hey! Whatever happened to global warming?

That’s a naive question, of course. Everybody knows there’s little or no connection between daily weather events and climate change (except when there’s a heat wave, a hurricane or some other natural disaster, in which case global warming is invariably to blame). Experts will tell you that our bitter winter weather proves nothing about climate change – that the world is still warming up at an alarming rate.

Well, maybe not so alarming. Global temperatures have now held steady for 16 years. They levelled off around 1997........

read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/whatever-happened-to-global-warming/article7725145/

Artful Dodger:

Of course, you realize that global warming is not about daily or seasonal weather events, but rather about the long-term averages of atmospheric temperatures. This winter is actually not that cold, at least not here where the temperature is almost 20 degrees higher than usual. That is not what global warming is about. It is about an increase of almost 2 degrees in average atmospheric temperatures over the last 100 years and the fact that those increases in temperature coincide with the burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale. Are fossil fuels to blame for global warming? Only if one sees a correlation between burning of fossil fuels and the increase in atmospheric long-term averages since the start of the industrial revolution. Just because winter is cold it does not mean that all that carbon dioxide has no effect on the atmosphere. The question is not whether this winter is cold or not, but rather whether average winter temperatures have increased in the last 200 years.

Of course, if global warming does not exist, then it is ok to keep burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere. After all, car and factory exhaust fumes are really harmless!

Übergeek 바둑이: Ha! I actually agree with you. But the models that scientists used to predict the "effects of global warming" haven't come true. My position is that we have no global warming and certainly it's not man made. We do have climate change but we can call that climate fluctuations or climate cycles and be just as accurate.

Pollution is another matter all together. We should be good stewards of the earth. But we shouldn't go over board and stop using fossil fuels altogether. We need to use fuels responsibly. If we had reliable green energy that was cost efficient (so far we don't) then we can move in that direction. Until then we need to use the technology we do have.

It's a huge red flag when there is money to be made for energy policy changes. Carbon credits, green dollar spending, and global warming research, not to mention the green energy investments, all stand to make a bundle if global warming policies move forward. See Al Gore. He's made millions on his lies. And in the end, he sold out to big oil anyway.

There is nothing wrong with responsible use of coal, oil, or gas. And there is no green energy technology that can supply a huge community with all their energy needs. Until there is, we have to continue to use what is available (and there is lots of it).

Artful Dodger: We do and we don't. When I see people being able to build hydrogen gas extractors for their cars from 'bits and pieces', or batteries made from cow dung....

"See Al Gore. He's made millions on his lies."

So has Tony Blair, it seems big politicians make more out of power then in!!

As to gun control.... does that mean the US will go back to using muskets and other single fire weapons as used in 1791?

Artful Dodger: It's a huge red flag when there is money to be made for energy policy changes"

And it's a huge red flag when the opposition stands to gain in the reverse.The pro and con to the discussion is cut right along party lines, which means both sides have supporters who blindly support each side with no clue of reality.So the tie breaker logically goes to informed sources, and they support the global warming/climate change theory by a landslide

(V):

> "See Al Gore. He's made millions on his lies."

So did Dick Cheney!

(V): Those muskets are still around but they're not that effective unless you're a fast reloader and you're faithful at keeping your powder dry.

The Col: The political elite, on both sides, are worthless and need to be thrown out. Career politicians are bums and don't look out for the folks first.

Übergeek 바둑이: Fine, he probably did. But Al Gore was the darling of the Global Warming movement and in the end, he refused to sell his network to Glen Beck but was ok with an organization that favors the terrorists AND is hugely connected to oil money. So much for Al Gore's sincerity. It's his own Halliburton.

Artful Dodger: Yep... I don't think 30 round shotgun magazines, attached to automatic shotguns were envisioned when the constitution was written. Pistols and bolt action rifles being more in line with the weaponry of that era.