×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

amazeofdeath Re:They can produce tritium at fission plants (305 comments)

Again, you have no point:

- If you can produce plutonium, you can produce tritium (in fact, you'll produce tritium in any water-cooled reactor).

- The relative amounts of Pu-239 and Pu-240 is a function of burn time. If you have a nuclear reactor, you can control the burn time, producing the isotope mix you prefer. Pu-239 doesn't need to be enriched with centrifuges or other methods like U-235.

- If you don't have plutonium production capability, but can get enough plutonium to make a bomb, getting tritium is trivial. Tritium has been widely used, and for example missing exit signs generate a large portion of NRC's "missing radioactive material" alerts.

- Pu-240 was discussed above. Its presence in large concentrations complicate bomb design because of its high spontaneous fission rate and shorter half-life compared to Pu-239.

about 4 months ago
top

If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

amazeofdeath Re:They can produce tritium at fission plants (305 comments)

I fail to see any point in your reply:

- All explosives have impurities. A uranium-based nuclear bomb is not 100 % U-235, it's enriched to somewhere around 90 % U-235. A block of TNT is not 100 % trinitrotoluene, there are impurities too. The impurities sometimes contribute to the outcome, but in nuclear weapons, it's the U-235 or Pu-239 that's brought to critical density condition to make the explosion possible.

- Working nuclear weapons have been designed without D-T boosting; in fact, no nuclear weapons program to date has began with such a boosted design. The boosting is a complication from engineering point of view.

- It's access to weapons-grade uranium or plutonium that's the problem from proliferation point of view. If you have working nuclear plants, like Japan does, access to tritium is a trivial addition.

about 4 months ago
top

If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

amazeofdeath Re:They can produce tritium at fission plants (305 comments)

Pu-240 isn't used for nuclear weapons, though. The isotope for bombs is Pu-239, with a critical mass of ~10 kg. The spontaneous fission rate for Pu-240 is much higher than for Pu-239 (about 30000 times as high), and it's also more highly radioactive, leading to additional problems with keeping the bomb cool before detonation.

The critical mass isn't that important in "normal" bomb designs. For example, Little Boy and Fat Man weighed about 4500 kg (the former being a couple hundred kg lighter), so a difference of a few tens of kg in the critical mass is negligible when compared to the total bomb mass. However, if you are aiming at the smallest possible physical bomb size, plutonium has a big advantage. Compare two actual weapons with ~1 kt yields, W33 and W54. The former is a gun-type uranium device, weighing something like 110-120 kg, based on the estimates I've seen, and it's an artillery shell with a base diameter of 20 cm and length of roughly 70 cm. The latter is a miniature plutonium implosion device with a weight of 23 kg and a diameter 27 cm.

about 4 months ago
top

Apple Converting Trial and Pirated iWork, iLife and Aperture To Full Versions

amazeofdeath Re:If only I were less organized! (134 comments)

Reading the press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/10/23Apple-Introduces-Next-Generation-iWork-and-iLife-Apps-for-OS-X-and-iOS.html), I'd guess you need to be running Mavericks to get the free versions.

about a year ago
top

Apple Converting Trial and Pirated iWork, iLife and Aperture To Full Versions

amazeofdeath Re:Not a Dick Move (134 comments)

Read the relevant article. Also, if they are already giving away the latest iWork and iLife suites, what's the point of having some of your users with older and possibly vulnerable versions?

about a year ago
top

Apple Converting Trial and Pirated iWork, iLife and Aperture To Full Versions

amazeofdeath Re:If only I were less organized! (134 comments)

What's the problem? iWork and iLife suites are free now. Or do you mean Aperture?

about a year ago
top

How Science Goes Wrong

amazeofdeath Re:All scientific conclusions should be questioned (316 comments)

No, the AC set up a straw man in his "experiment". It ignores the higher thermal capacity and lower heat conductivity of humid air compared to dry air, for starters. He may have a PhD in physics (so do I), but that doesn't excuse him from the fact that CO2 has been shown to be a greenhouse gas.

about a year ago
top

Google Avoids Fine Over Street View WiFi Snooping, Ordered To Delete Data

amazeofdeath Re:Detriment caused (115 comments)

Equipment that would join an unknown network without any user interaction at all?

Yes. You seem to be pretty out-of-date in normal laptop and other WiFi-enabled systems.

there's no such commercial products that'll crack WEP without user configuration

Sure there are, but the people selling them aren't exactly going to advertise them in your local store.

I thought putting up a disclaimer (as there are "commercial" products for pretty much everything), but I thought that it was clear from the context. Your OEM laptop will not crack WEP out-of-the-box.

about a year and a half ago
top

Google Avoids Fine Over Street View WiFi Snooping, Ordered To Delete Data

amazeofdeath Re:Detriment caused (115 comments)

Having a laptop open in your car does that, it's nothing special. My ages-old iBook would connect to any open WiFi network, were I using the default settings. Picking up an unencrypted connection is trivial, whether by purpose or by accident; connecting to a WEP-encrypted WiFi network requires some specific effort. You are building up some ridiculous straw-man here: There's a lot of equipment that will connect to any open WiFi network in out-of-the-box configuration, but there's no such commercial products that'll crack WEP without user configuration.

about a year and a half ago
top

International Linear Collider Design Ready To Go

amazeofdeath Not more powerful than LHC (71 comments)

The collision energies are ~10 % of LHC's. The benefit of a linear collider is that leptons like electrons and positrons can be used, making the analysis of the collisions simpler.

about a year and a half ago
top

Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes

amazeofdeath Re:And if one can't believe? (931 comments)

You've yet to show that Krauss holds that view. Abolishment through education (as higher education correlates with less belief in sky-fairies) seems to be what he advocates.

Huh? He want's it labelled child abuse.

No. He wants religious indoctrination of children to be labeled as child abuse. That is not equal to criminalizing religion.

It's also a blatant fallacy that "higher education correlates with less creation". In fact the opposite is true if a person pursues an education in Philosophy.

Wrong. 72.8 % of philosophers being atheists is much, much higher than the average in the US. Link to a very recent study: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-do-philosophers-believe/

So, you couldn't find anyone giving those odds? Winning in lottery is a true/false question, how can anyone set those odds as anything different than 50/50? This is something that you seemingly fail to grasp.

Wrong, maybe you should go back and take a basic statistics class. Either that, or you need to stop twisting facts to support your beliefs, which would be the most advisable course of action.

But that's what you claim: The existence of a creator is a 50/50 chance situation, with nothing possibly skewing those odds to either direction. You just can't see how taking that stance in the lottery analogy leads to an absurdity. I'm not twisting any facts. I just find your unsupported 50/50 claim ludicrous, and tried to show how a true/false situation can mean anything but 50/50 odds.

The experiment comes from Philosophy first!

I don't really agree with this. The ancient Greek philosophers got several things wrong, when they didn't do the experiments they could have done.

You have a concept of something, you build a model to see if you are correct. The concept and thought process allowing you to build the experiment is Philosophy.

And that specific philosophy is called science. Philosophy in general lacks the self-correcting feedback that science has between the experiment and the theory. But, a theory begins with observations; usually such observations that aren't explained by existing theories.

I'm doubtful that you have a PHD.

Not my problem. My credentials are verifiable, but I'll prefer anonymity, as I don't try to make it an argument from authority. While you are on your trip to visit the cosmologist, find a couple of experimentalists and ask your philosophy question.

Einstein was not too happy about how Science was used against Japan either was he?

And? Science doesn't provide moral guidance in this sense. Though I'd like to know Einstein's view on atom bomb vs. invasion of the Japanese main islands, as the latter had a lot higher projected death toll.

We have found giant skeletons, which means that David and Goliath is very possible.

:D You do know that the giant skeleton was a hoax?

We have found all kinds of validation that a major world wide flood happened, so it is possible that this event occurred.

No. We have found evidence of local floods, but no evidence for a global one. And there isn't enough water on earth for a biblical flood.

Parting the Red Sea has been shown to have some merit with natural phenomenon, so while it may not have been a guy with a staff it could have happened.

Wind driving the water off from such a large area is a stretch, and it hasn't been demonstrated in reality. But yeah, I'll grant that it's not entirely impossible. The problem then is that you are trying to use a natural phenomenon as evidence for the supernatural.

You make a false claim that it's all horrible and all wrong.

I did not make that claim, I said "much". There are also the boring parts (genealogies, *yawn*), and even a few reasonably entertaining stories.

I haven't claimed that BB theory is right, as no theory is ever right. They can only shown to be wrong; until that happens, the prevailing theories are our best models to match the universe we observe. Did you read the Scienceblogs page I linked to? Where were the numerous BB theories presented there?

That whole paragraph reeks! Some theories are always wrong and should never be pursued.

What does that have to do with theories not being proven right? Of course some theories are so wrong that it's waste of time to study them, but to recognize theories that are wrong usually requires developing the theory to a stage where it can make predictions, and then making the experiment or observation.

Prevailing theories are often wrong, sometimes to the point of never being pursued Hitler's theories of a supreme race for example (which were heavily embraced in the US). Countless theories have been right enough that we can progress in knowledge because of them. Einstein's theory of relativity for example. Big Bang sits somewhere in the middle of those two theories.

That's an absurd claim. BB theory is based on Einstein's general relativity, which predicts non-static (that is, expanding or contracting) universes. If you want details, check out FLRW metric. "Race science" or eugenics, on the other hand, was politically motivated and twisted to produce "results" that the ruling parties wanted. It was more an ideology.

Yes, I read the blog but no, my opinion that Expanding Vacuum is a much better theory does not change.

Would you finally describe the EV theory? Google doesn't recognize it, and as I said earlier, the small bits you've inferred don't point to a theory which I've heard of.

It also does not change the fact that I can go to numerous locations to read variations in the Big Bang theory which also claim to be right.

You have to substantiate this claim (actually two claims: 1) different BB theories, and 2) claim to be right).

The next two points mean that you don't know Krauss's work at all. Again, you use fallacy to deny your own ignorance.

But Krauss's work is mostly about BB cosmology. Are you referring to A Universe from Nothing? A popular account of how the Big Bang could have happened.

Philosophy is required for every part of education. Rhetoric, Logic, and ethics.

Perhaps. But those are also well integrated into other disciplines, so math covers the logic part, for example.

Since you use fallacy so much, you seem to be extremely devoid of philosophical training.

Yet you seem to be leading at this front, starting the very post I'm replying to with a fallacy.

If philosophy is taught early, people are smarter. This is a fact, shown by over a thousand years of teaching in this way.

Evidence? I'd rather expect that education in general makes people smarter, and starting from an earlier age gives better results.

It should be taught young, not as an elective only in higher education. It has no precursor except for language which can be taught at the same time.

The problem here is you try to claim that philosophy, and only philosophy, can give these tools. In reality, those tools are in the sciences and math, and only in those disciplines philosophy can lead to actual knowledge about our world. You need to combine the philosophy with experiment, i. e. do science, to produce actual results. You can see this in the study I linked above: The philosophers don't have a consensus on any of the questions asked (external world comes closest, with 80 % agreeing with it). So while philosophy can provide us some useful tools, and studying it surely won't hurt anyone, it doesn't seem to be that useful alone.

Can I perform physics without Math, Algebra and Trigonometry? For more accurate Physics, I would also need Calculus right?

Yes, math is an integral part of physics. But if I calculate the trajectory of a projectile, am I doing physics or math? Or fit a theoretical model to my data? In the same vein, I'm not philosophizing when I try to deduce the magnetic interactions in a sample from different datasets.

about a year and a half ago
top

Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes

amazeofdeath Re:And if one can't believe? (931 comments)

While I don't doubt that you can find people with extreme views such as abolishment of religion, that's not what atheists in general demand. The demand is to keep the beliefs inside the believers and out of the society.

Were we not discussing Krauss that has just such a view? Randomly poll atheists and see how many agree with him, and don't see their belief as hypocritical.

You've yet to show that Krauss holds that view. Abolishment through education (as higher education correlates with less belief in sky-fairies) seems to be what he advocates.

And yet you can't give an example of your 50/50 claim. Not that it matters, philosophy is pretty worthless in evaluating claims of existence.

It becomes rather pointless to establish a different ratio when we know we can never prove either side is correct. It's a true or false question. How does any rational person set the odds any other way?

So, you couldn't find anyone giving those odds? Winning in lottery is a true/false question, how can anyone set those odds as anything different than 50/50? This is something that you seemingly fail to grasp.

The second half of that is absolute rubbish! Every scientific theory starts with a Philosophical evaluation! Every single one! Why do you think most scientists have PHDs? You do know what PHD is an acronym for don't you?

As a PhD, I'll have to inform that you are wrong. Every scientific theory begins with experimental data. This is why, say, the ancient Greeks theorizing about atoms didn't produce anything usable.

I've often wondered, how many of those people would have believed in a god, had they not been indoctrinated during their childhood (I don't claim that all of them were). I have hard time believing that anyone would come up with the Christian God and dogma (virgin birth and such) just starting from first principles and working in vacuum.

You are showing a great amount of ignorance of history here. Read up on Sumeria and Ancient Greek beliefs. It's not difficult to come up with any modern religion based on previous beliefs.

That's part of my point. The religious dogma seems like fairy-tales built on older fairy-tales. I did say "in vacuum", i. e. working without knowledge of the current and past religions.

Much of what is in the Judea Christian old testament seems to have some truth to the shape of the world also. If some does, perhaps you have been fooled into thinking there is no truth in anything except for what you have been taught to believe?

Much of the Old Testament is factually wrong or pretty hideous stuff morally. I don't know about truth, but science has been the only tool to give us something usable.

Einstein did believe in a creator, but was not a practicing Jew and did not believe what most Religions did or taught about the creator. You do realize that all of his writings are on the Smithsonian web site and translated to English, so you could easily check facts for yourself right?

So show me wrong with actual quotes.

How can you possibly agree with a disproportional set of conflicting information?

What conflicting information? We have talked about inaccuracy in measurements of parameters, like the age of the universe.

I'm not trying to claim the theories are bad, but pointing out the fact that there are numerous theories of the same name and none of them are the same. To claim BB is right means you have never read on what BB is.

I haven't claimed that BB theory is right, as no theory is ever right. They can only shown to be wrong; until that happens, the prevailing theories are our best models to match the universe we observe. Did you read the Scienceblogs page I linked to? Where were the numerous BB theories presented there?

You must also answer "who's BB" theory is right, who's numbers for dark matter and energy are correct, etc.. etc...

You still don't get it: Parameters are part of a theory. Using different parameter sets within a theory doesn't make different theories.

Also remember that if the expanding vacuum theory is correct, BB never happens.

What "expanding vacuum theory"? It's just your misinterpretation, as far as I can tell.

The Universe slowly expanded from a small point of space.

Yes, that's the starting point of BB theory.

In addition to making BB defunct, it ages the Universe immensely.

How does it do that, when it's part of the BB theory?

You still seem to believe that there is only 1 theory of Big Bang after being shown that there are differences between who you ask about BB theory!

Show the differences, then. All you have shown so far are different parameters used in the BB theory.

If you are not using the Earth and Moon's mass, you are not modelling the Earth and Moon are you?

To what accuracy do we know those masses? Does using different values within the known inaccuracy produce different Newtonian gravity theories?

And if I said that magic dragons pull the moon through the sky (which is the equivalent of Dark Matter and Dark Energy) I'm not modelling anything real am I?

Again you show your ignorance. Dark energy and dark matter are placeholders for causes of things that we observe, but don't have a proper theory for. For example, the Bullet Cluster gives pretty much direct observation of the dark matter, but we still don't know what the dark matter is, exactly. We only know some things that it isn't. The difference to your magical things is the dragons aren't needed to explain the moon's orbit.

Again, if Expanding Vacuum is right then all big bang theories are wrong!

Again, you are only talking about something that you have invented, not the actual BB theory.

If a massive explosion happened to cause the Universe's expansion, then at some point it must contract.

But the BB theory doesn't claim a massive explosion. That's only an analogy. And I don't see how an explosion would lead to contraction; I've never observed the gasses released when firing a gun contract back into the barrel or case. It's all a straw man you are building here. And if you are talking about running time backwards so that expansion turns into contraction, didn't you just above say that your imaginary expanding vacuum theory starts from a small point?

Oh, so you explain all the discrepancies away by dismissing other people's work for them. Sorry, that does not work.

It'd be helpful if you showed those discrepancies instead of your own misunderstandings.

Descartes stated "I think therefor I am" which discounts the possibility that you are a computer program. Yes, we can dismiss the theory in a very simple fashion.

Is this the level of sophistication that 30 years of philosophizing has given you? What if you are only programmed to think that?

You claimed to know some of Krauss's work, I guess that was not true? Go read Krauss's books, bigotry aside the science is rather good.

The problem is that nothing in Krauss's work resembles your expanding vacuum, as opposed to the BB theory.

I spelled that out very clearly, and in fact you comment in what I stated.

It is clear that you can't answer this question.

Philosophy is an elective in College, it's not required.

So is physics, at least when talking about modern level (say, the level of 1900s like quantum mechanics). So?

about a year and a half ago
top

Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes

amazeofdeath Re:And if one can't believe? (931 comments)

You would probably not argue that a Muslim demanding everyone believes and worships as they do, or they suffer criminal penalties is wrong. Why is it okay for an atheist to do the same? I call that hypocrisy.

While I don't doubt that you can find people with extreme views such as abolishment of religion, that's not what atheists in general demand. The demand is to keep the beliefs inside the believers and out of the society.

I have studied Philosophy and countless Philosophers for over 30 years.

And yet you can't give an example of your 50/50 claim. Not that it matters, philosophy is pretty worthless in evaluating claims of existence.

Move to Descartes, Aquinas, and even many people we don't call "Philosophers" such as Newton, Godel, and even Einstein.

I've often wondered, how many of those people would have believed in a god, had they not been indoctrinated during their childhood (I don't claim that all of them were). I have hard time believing that anyone would come up with the Christian God and dogma (virgin birth and such) just starting from first principles and working in vacuum. Additionally, Einstein was a pantheist, he didn't believe in a creator god.

Unfortunately, showing you that different places having different facts in the same theories does no good. I will admit that I don't know everything, but you refuse to admit that you are wrong even when shown facts. If there was some magic book of the Universe, there would be one set of facts that everyone pointed to. There is no such book, and scientists can't agree on numerous portions of the Big Bang.

You still haven't shown a single disagreement. You just don't get it: That two popular sources cite somewhat different numbers does not mean that there are two different Big Bang theories. The theory is the framework that ties the parameters together in a consistent way. For example, in BB theory, the size of the universe is tied to the age of the universe. The size of the universe is also tied to the Hubble constant. If we measure the Hubble constant with say 20 % accuracy, we get an estimate for the age of the universe that's 20 % or more inaccurate. This inaccuracy in determination of parameters has as just little to do with correctness of the BB theory than inaccuracy in the earth's circumstance measurements has to do with the theory of the spherical earth.

Simulations can use up to 90% dark matter and dark energy, yet there is no fixed properties for either. Just like there are no fixed property for the age of the Universe, what exactly blew up at the beginning, or even how much stuff existed.

Yes, yes, there are different parameters in the BB theory. Using two different sets of parameters doesn't produce two different theories. If you use two different masses for the earth and the moon to model the earth-moon system with Newtonian gravity, you don't produce two different theories of Newtonian gravity.

The only thing that is agreeable is the speed at which the Universe is expanding because we can't argue measured speeds. There are still scientists today that are working on determining if the rate is slowing down

The measurements indicate that the rate is increasing. Speeding, slowing down, doesn't matter from the theory point of view, because using different parameters in the BB theory produces those scenarios. By ever-increasingly accurate measurements we can determine those parameters.

because it's required with a mass inflation scenario.

What "mass inflation" scenario? Please explain how mass and inflation are connected. It is clear that while you may have read about some of these things, you haven't really understood what you have read.

All you have to do is read and you will see that very few people agree on some pretty major facts with Big Bang. This is why the expanding vacuum is gaining so much momentum. It's a way better theory and requires no big ball of mass.

Wrong again. There are no expanding vacuum and big ball of mass versions for the BB theory. Those are just your fundamental misunderstandings. Again, I can only suggest discussing these matters with an actual expert.

And if you claim that the theories are the same, or that Big Bang does not require a ball of exploding mass why is it named "Big Bang"? Use your head just a little bit.

Use facts a little bit. The term was coined up by the BB theory opponent Fred Hoyle to give some sort of catchy name in a radio broadcast. The Higgs particle is often referred to as "the God particle" in mainstream media. By your logic, this means that the Standard Model includes a god.

No, I don't dismiss it. I dismiss any personal, interacting god. I dismiss any biblical and such creator gods, who create the universe in an already-evolved state. A creator who just pushes the button, so to speak, and ends the interaction there, is an option that must be considered possible. For example, if our universe is a computer simulation, the entity who started the simulation would qualify as such a creator. However, I find this option rather disinteresting. How would you show that this is what really happened? I don't see a way, and we'll be stuck in a situation of "we don't know what happened". As long as science can hypothesize testable (at least in principle) theories of the beginning of the universe, that's the way to go.

Just like a Rabbi, a Priest, a Monk could, or anyone else can not prove their "belief" on creation neither can you! You have a belief!

Again, you misunderstood me. First, a lack of belief is not a belief. Second, I dismiss those based on available evidence, just like I dismiss universal aether, flat earth, unicorns, and so on.

Do you understand that your belief is based on your opinion and not fact?

You should study the concept of null hypothesis. If there's no evidence for something, no matter how hard we look, the thing probably doesn't exist. Should there be evidence for a god or gods in the future, I'll reassess my view.

I think we can debunk your belief in a computer simulation using Descartes principles just as easily as other things.

It's not my belief, I just acknowledge the possibility, and I'm sorry, but we can't.

That's only an issue with theories that don't make (currently) testable predictions.

Bullshit, at least in the given context. We can't prove any portion of string theory correct, just like we can't prove Big Bang to be correct. Don't get me wrong, string theory has some interesting math, but it's not factual. If there is no fact, there is no possible way to have a testable prediction.

Of course there is a way to make testable predictions starting from first principles. Einstein did this (say, slowing down of clocks special relativity), BB theory did this (cosmic microwave background, for example, or abundance of light elements).

When you have 90% of the matter as hypothetical, there is no way to make a testable prediction.

Yet, BB theory has made predictions that have been confirmed.

Again, this is where personally I prefer the Expanding Vacuum theory, it requires no such manipulation.

Perhaps you could at this point summarize your EV theory, as it's nothing I can recognize.

Who said an alternative to BB needed to be taught?

Well, you were talking about being biased on what is taught. So what should be taught then?

What I stated is that people should be taught how to think about the question of whether or not the Universe requires a creator.

And they are, in the philosophy classes.

about a year and a half ago
top

Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes

amazeofdeath Re:And if one can't believe? (931 comments)

No, belief in a creator is not like winning the lottery. It's a pure true/false question. We know the Universe began somehow. Atheists believe in no deity and claim that a Universe can just spring up from nothing. A creationist believes that something must have caused it to begin. Observation dictates that the creationist is probably correct.

You are missing a lot of possibilities here. What if the universe (or multiverse, or whatever you wish to call it) has always existed, and our observable universe began from a phase change in that larger entity about 13.8 billion years ago? Or, we are are a 3+1-dimensional brane in a higher-dimensional multiverse?

Why? 1. Observe the Universe and everything has a cause and effect.

Already wrong at this point. Say, an uranium atom decays just now. What made that happen at that precise moment? Nothing.

2. If a Universe could just pop up from nothing what has prevented numerous additional Universes from popping up within ours,

Why would those universes have to pop up within our universe? If our universe sprang up from something in a higher vacuum state dropping to its ground state, that could have happened many times, with the other universes being outside ours? Or, as scientists like Stephen Hawking have at some point surmised, what if our black holes give birth to other universes, which create their own space-times?

Because there is no proof, and no way of proving the answer to the question Philosophers through history have given it a 50/50 shot.

Not any philosophers I'm aware of. Perhaps you could provide some references.

Most atheists, yourself obviously included, dismiss the creator question because of Religious teaching, not because the question has been invalidated by any science. The question is still a very valid, and as mentioned previously it's an extremely healthy question to try and solve.

No, I don't dismiss it. I dismiss any personal, interacting god. I dismiss any biblical and such creator gods, who create the universe in an already-evolved state. A creator who just pushes the button, so to speak, and ends the interaction there, is an option that must be considered possible. For example, if our universe is a computer simulation, the entity who started the simulation would qualify as such a creator. However, I find this option rather disinteresting. How would you show that this is what really happened? I don't see a way, and we'll be stuck in a situation of "we don't know what happened". As long as science can hypothesize testable (at least in principle) theories of the beginning of the universe, that's the way to go.

As to this:

How laughable can you get? Your evidence is two popular accounts of a scientific theory? And the "U of M" site has its latest reference from 1995, do you think that Wiki might have a bit more up-to-date info?

No, the Wiki does not have the most up to date information for Big Bang. The age of the Universe by most cosmologists is closer to U of M's information than Wiki's information.

You really are banging on your ignorance of the subject. Who are these "most cosmologists", who claim that the universe is about 15 bn years old, instead of 13.8 or thereabouts. The latest data by the Planck probe gives the age as 13.8 bn years, and that was a minor surprise to most cosmologists, as that's some 80 million years higher than our previous-best data indicated. Read all about it here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/21/what-the-entire-universe-is-made-of-thanks-to-planck/

I can tell you that in elementary school in Michigan we were taught the Big Bang, as are most kids. In the decades that followed, the size of the ball of mass was changed as often as the age of the Universe. The books and theories all vary greatly, and have since the time the theory was first proposed.

Yes, details and parameters of a theory change, as first those are unknown, and only later determined in more and more precise measurements. You probably dismiss the theory of heliocentrism too, as the distance between the earth and the sun has been estimated to have different values over time. Or the theory of a spherical earth, as the ancient greeks got a different circumference value than what we measure now.

Theoretical physics as a whole has that issue (and this should be obvious since it's "theory"), look at string theory for another example. The first theory to come out had 7 strings, now it could be infinite depending on who's work you like.

That's only an issue with theories that don't make (currently) testable predictions.

I'm against being biased in what is taught.

OK, so what alternative for BB theory should be taught? That there was a creator? What happened after the creation?

about a year and a half ago
top

Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes

amazeofdeath Re:And if one can't believe? (931 comments)

Oh, and I definitely didn't mean that string theory should be taught as dogma. Stupid typo on my part, the part should be "as with anything dealing with science, it *shouldn't* be taught as dogma".

about a year and a half ago
top

Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes

amazeofdeath Re:And if one can't believe? (931 comments)

Way way off on nearly all you first posted.

Nope, you just didn't understand it.

Did you bother to read this on Wiki?

It seems that you didn't.

Are you calling steady state theory the same as big bang? Both were similar, but until the 80s there was a ton of push trying to determine when the Universe would start to contract because that was required due to the explosion in the Big Bang.

Yes, it really seems that you didn't read the article. For example, steady state theory doesn't explain the CMB, which was observed well before the 80s.

It was because the majority of Cosmologists believed that there was a ball of mass that blew up causing the Universe to begin to exist (and they don't mention how the mass came to exist, or the energy, or the space, or the physics) and for the most part in the Scientific community you were not allowed to discuss it.

Repeating your rubbish doesn't make it right. How about this: Go to your local university or look up their site for email contact info, find an astronomer or a cosmologist, and ask his/her view on this.

If you did, you were shunned and labelled a "Creationist".

So you think that for example string theorists are/were labelled as creationists for proposing systems that would lead to a Big Bang?

Now compare the Wiki with U of M, and see where the same theory can easily contradict itself. As a quick pointer, U of M has the Universe at 15+ billion years, Wiki at 13.

How laughable can you get? Your evidence is two popular accounts of a scientific theory? And the "U of M" site has its latest reference from 1995, do you think that Wiki might have a bit more up-to-date info?

Belief in a creator is a 50/50 shot.

:D This one is a gem. Sure, like winning lottery is a 50/50 shot. You either win, or you don't.

about a year and a half ago
top

Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes

amazeofdeath Re:And if one can't believe? (931 comments)

I gave no false facts. The BB theory by Gamow's concept was a ball of mass exploding which matches what I stated.

Oops, you did it again. An explosion would require pre-existing space. The explosion description is only an analogy.

It also does not change the _fact_ that there are numerous different competing BB theories. Size of mass, energy required, age of the Universe are all different.

You seem to be very confused about what a theory means. I'll give you an analogy: At a time when we didn't have very exact measurements of the speed of light in vacuum, your absurd definition of a theory would mean that there's an infinity of Einsteinian theories of relativity. One has the speed of light value of 299 792 458 m/s, another 299 792 458.1 m/s. That's just plain rubbish. There's one special and one general theory of relativity, with the parameter values we have measured. Other parameter values are ruled out the measurements.

BB was proven to be a rather funny joke, which is why it had to adopt EV theories to remain relevant.

Show me where this was proven. And again, no-one using the abbreviation "EV" should tell you something.

Let me guess, you never looked at the U of M web site did you?

WTF? I even gave you a link to what I think you mean by the U of M site. If it's not the correct, please provide an actual reference.

And while I'm not a cosmologist or an astronomer, I'd say I have a reasonable understanding of the BB theory and its history. Heck, reading about cosmology some 18 years ago was the main reason for me to start studying physics a few years later, and I still closely follow the area of research.

Kraus not demanding a punishment does not change the fact that he want's the teaching of specific subject matter illegal.

Please provide references. In secular countries the US, teaching religion in this sense in schools is already illegal. But I'd like you to show me where he demands that parents indoctrinating their children with a religion should be made illegal instead of it being morally wrong.

Further, you calling your children names has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of teaching them to answer to question creation.

I'm not sure where you got this part, but for once, you are right. Teaching critical thinking is not indoctrination, though.

Teaching them to think about a theory is not a harmful act, calling names or hitting them is, or at least has greater potential.

You are missing the part about teaching them to believe and not question a fairy tale.

If you want to claim "Religion is not proven" then the same punishment should be proper for teaching them Big Bang or EV theory.

Rubbish. Telling children that a fairy tale is true is not comparable to presenting the current scientific knowledge.

They are all theories.

Religion is not a theory, it's fantasy.

Do you support punishing parents for teaching their kids String theory too?

Well, String Theories have at least some hope of being correct. But, as with anything dealing with science, it should be taught as dogma. You are once again building a straw man, as I've nowhere demanded punishing parents for teaching religious rubbish to their children.

Stalin used Marxist theories, and condemned Religious people to death.

Stalin condemned a big lot of non-religious communists to death, too, while there remained persons in the USSR who were not condemned to death. To blame atheism for the acts done in building up a person cult and a dictatorship is ignorance of historical facts.

The point of the examples of Catholicism are that you can't blame Religion for shitty things people do, as is the atheist tendency.

While I sort of agree with you (bad people would do bad things with or without religion, and so on), what's your apologist explanation for the wreck that Catholicism has given us in the AIDS situation in Africa?

It's easy to spot when you claim that teaching a kid faith is like giving them heroin.

Yet again, your reading comprehension fails you. The analogy was never about giving children heroin.

Believing in a creator is rational and logical. Just as logical as claiming there is none. I agree with people that claim we can't prove it, but that does not diminish the importance of the question.

I did not miss it, and it's still not rational or logical, at least as long as your creator has any religious context. To believe in someone pressing the button to start our universe is a position that can't be disproved, but the evidence we have is very much against an omniscient and -potent being.

If you agree with that last statement, there should be no reason for us not to teach others how we came to our answers.

OK, how did you come to your conclusion? What evidence did you use to get there.

What is very wrong, is only presenting our answers and claiming anyone else is wrong/criminal/insane/etc...

Well, that's what religions do. Be gay and want to get married in my country, tough luck, you are a pervert and will go to hell. And that's because the Christians say so.

about a year and a half ago
top

Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes

amazeofdeath Re:And if one can't believe? (931 comments)

There were no factual errors.

There were several factual errors, starting from your revisionist claims of BB theory, which I showed wrong. Buy the G. Gamow's book I mentioned, or better yet, find Gamow's BB nucleosynthesis article from 1948 (that's before event there was the rather misleading name "Big Bang theory").

If I claim that you must believe like me, then I'm a horrible Religious person correct?

Well, pretty much so. Show me the evidence for your argument, which have absolutely refused to do.

So Krauss does this as an atheist, and it's not just as horrible?

Krauss bases his view on what we can observe (in the scientific sense, in a repeatable way), and speculates on what we can possibly extrapolate from that data. Any religious view can't do that. And yet, the scientific views like Krauss's doesn't say you *must* believe like me, it's rather that you should look at the evidence (or lack of it) we have, and draw your own conclusions, not cram it down your children's throats.

Krauss with his specific beliefs requiring the punishment of anyone that digs for the prime question and comes to a conclusion different than his.

Again, show me where he requires punishment for that. You don't say what your *prime question* is, but I'd guess it has something to do with the beginning of the universe, and Krauss along with others is actually helping a new generation or two to get some handle in perhaps digging into those issues.

What is the punishment for Child abuse? Now you are nitpicking and not making sense at all. In addition to removal of children from custody, it's a felony. Duration for imprisonment depends on the State as well as the Judicial system (Jury, Judges, Lawyers, etc...). If I say "atheists should be charged as murders" it won't mean anything if I don't say "and they should go to jail for X years!"? Sorry, it does not work that way in any language.

Common misunderstanding in these issues, in your part, that is. If I abuse my children by calling them bastards every now and them, while otherwise keeping good care of them, it's not a punishable offence. You just don't want understand underlying issues that may affect the development of a child if he, say, has to always be afraid of going to hell if he does one bad thing.

That does not follow at all. The laws in my country say that hard drugs like heroin are illegal, and I wouldn't be a criminal by determining that hard drugs are necessary for people.

Did you decide that someone believing that there is a creator is as harmful to society as feeding a child heroin.

And you didn't get it. In the example, I would be just expressing my opinion that heroin is good for you, not feeding or injecting anyone with heroin.

Stop blaming fucked up people on Religion, it's absolute rubbish!

Where did I do that?

The two biggest mass murders in history committed their atrocities for power and were atheists. In the process, they deemed it necessary to kill anyone of any Religion. Does that mean that every atheist in the world is as fucked up as Mao and Stalin? Obviously the answer is "no".

Where did Hitler go? Oh, he was shown to have deep religious connections. I'd guess Stalin is the next one to drop off the list with his religious training... Where is the Pope on your list? The body count in Africa is getting pretty good with the prevention of condom usage. Or the Christian God, the worst murderer of all times (at least for the Christians): He invented death.
 

If the Catholic Church doctrine told their followers to be pedophiles, would they have done so?

I have no idea of how we got from your atheist bashing and BB theory misconceptions to this point, but very well... Would you endorse an establishment that systematically protects pedophiles? The Catholic Church did, and there's good documentation that the just-retired Pope Ratzi did. These abuse cases have been going on for years and years now. If a system is rotten at the top, why do even bring in the congregations? And sadly, even congregations did want the cases hidden, but I'll let you Google for that. Or.. (I'll loan your next line) Hell no. The congregation, consisting partly of the parents of the abused children, at least created a culture of silence, where the abused couldn't speak out about the abuse. I'll let you Google that.

Back to the point of the argument: Believing in a creator is rational and logical.

On the base level of this discussion, I'm asking you to justify that. There is no sign of a creator, so why believing one is rational and logical. And, where did that creator come from?

If you agree with that last statement, there should be no reason for us not to teach others how we came to our answers. What is very wrong, is only presenting our answers and claiming anyone else is wrong/criminal/insane/etc...

How did you come to the "answer" of a creator? There is no evidence for it, and, as far as any creators as the religions describe them, our available data rather outrules them. Indoctrinating your child with, say, the Christian creation story is wrong, if it prevents him from understanding scientific theories like the theory of evolution.

And yes, atheists like Krauss do exactly the wrong thing. They get paid a whole lot of money to do the wrong to boot! Question why?

To do what? To make speeches? If you think that they are preaching instead of presenting the current scientific theories, perhaps with their own pet hypotheses, you are just plain wrong.

about a year and a half ago
top

Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes

amazeofdeath Re:And if one can't believe? (931 comments)

And still no acknowledgements of the factual errors you have presented...

And Krauss also claims that anyone teaching any Religion to a child should be jailed for Child abuse.

Provide quotation for the requirement of jailing the parents. Saying that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse doesn't mean claiming that the parents should be jailed for that.

So people that look for the answer, and determine that there needs to be a creator are criminals to him.

That does not follow at all. The laws in my country say that hard drugs like heroin are illegal, and I wouldn't be a criminal by determining that hard drugs are necessary for people.

about a year and a half ago
top

Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes

amazeofdeath Re:And if one can't believe? (931 comments)

People are taught not to look for the beginning of all things.

OK, please show where this happens in science and atheism. It's pure rubbish, even Krauss, who you so eager to put down, has published a book that clearly establishes the fact that we don't know what happened at the beginning or even if there really was a beginning per se at all, and then goes on to present some of his views on the subject.

about a year and a half ago

Submissions

amazeofdeath hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

amazeofdeath has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?