Has anyone heard from or know if Jay Cantrell is doing ok?
He told us what the problem was in a blog entry.
Actually, two blog entries:
- the most recent one (August 13)
- the second half of his May 28 blog.
ok, I knew nothing.
Jay C's blog entry of November 2/3 makes things a lot clearer.
While reading that catalog of disasters I was thinking that this beat "My computer crashed and I lost all my files" hands down.
There were also shades of Todd_d172's https://storiesonline.net/s/18342/the-shack-an-angry-man and https://storiesonline.net/s/18872/the-shack-an-unreasonable although I'm pretty sure Jay C is not ex-special-forces.
I look forward to seeing any new chapters or stories from Jay C, but fully appreciate that has to take the back of the queue over family concerns. Hoping those work out well.
Thanks for the kind words. I posted a new chapter today (as well as an update on the family stuff).
I still don't have a lot of time but I have more than I did so I'm writing a bit at a time.
I still don't have a lot of time but I have more than I did so I'm writing a bit at a time.
We're just glad that things have slowed down enough that you have the time to write again. Always remember the sequence: God, family, work, everything else.
Always remember the sequence: God, family, work, everything else.
Why some fictional made up character first?
seanski1969
1/1/2019, 4:37:45 PM
@LonelyDad
Always remember the sequence: God, family, work, everything else.
Why some fictional made up character first?
That depends on your point of view. To me my God is not fictional. You can call it a delusion if you want, but to me it's real.
You can call it a delusion if you want, but to me it's real.
Delusions always seem real to the deluded.
Small children believe what they are told about God, Santa, the Easter Bunny & the Tooth Fairy, along with other make-believe beings. It's a shame that they grow up still clinging to one.
No! Not the Easter Bunny too!
According to a recent UK news story, a Christian charity teaches that the existence of something can be disproven by smashing a chocolate model. So smashing a chocolate Santa proves he isn't real. I believe I've seen chocolate Easter Bunnies.
On the other hand, I haven't seen a chocolate God or a chocolate Tooth Fairy, so they must be real ;)
AJ
On the other hand, I haven't seen a chocolate God or a chocolate Tooth Fairy, so they must be real ;)
Guess God isn't real as they are available for sale, :)
https://www.google.com/shopping/product/15816225750225345770?q=chocolate+buddha&num=40&rlz=1C1CHBH_enUS773US773&biw=1093&bih=556&prds=paur:ClkAsKraXy0pN5n14hYsSkRKm0UvEVmx5urKxeVRaGAuMKKs5BhLSSFW6TLZGHdogsmXV_m2DUbtJUOkWRvVcy1qa9ttKY8BRP4e5YtaYS3klqpW3SDN1lAfChIZAFPVH739pSjiWWcyyxQp3r6eMMmhY97xwA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqgPSLsdDfAhWDFXwKHWseClkQ8wIIkgQ
Delusions always seem real to the deluded.
Small children believe what they are told about God, Santa, the Easter Bunny & the Tooth Fairy, along with other make-believe beings. It's a shame that they grow up still clinging to one.
Belief in a supreme being might be delusional. But I compare these two statements and can't find one iota of a bit of difference between the two:
1. In the beginning was the Big Bang, and
2. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Science has an alternate hypothesis as to how thing originated than do the religious. Neither can be proved. But since you're going to find out for sure in about 70-80 years (more or less), why lose any sleep over it?
Science has an alternate hypothesis
No scientist ever said "In the beginning was the Big Bang." Hawking proposed it after much observation and study. It was not a simple declaration.
Religion is not a hypothesis. It is a belief based on faith without physical evidence. It is fundamentally unable or unwilling to change when new facts & evidence are presented.
Cosmological Theory is based on observation and measurement, which is ongoing and why it is fluid and constantly being debated and revised as we observe more and learn more all the time.
Cosmological Theory is based on observation and measurement, which is ongoing and why it is fluid and constantly being debated and revised as we observe more and learn more all the time.
A few questions;
* What filled the universe as we know it prior to the 'big bang'? Or are we to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing?
* You've stated theory is based on observation and measurement. No one was around to witness it much less measure it. All there is left are some old microwave signals that suggest it, not prove it. What 'proof' do you have, or are we to take it on 'faith' science has it right?
* You call the belief in God, a higher power, etc a delusion. What proof do you offer to back up that claim?
No scientist ever said "In the beginning was the Big Bang." Hawking proposed it after much observation and study. It was not a simple declaration.
I paraphrased there. As I'm sure you realize. Given how science approaches the Big Bang Theory, the intent is obvious as I'm sure just about everyone agrees.
Religion is not a hypothesis. It is a belief based on faith without physical evidence.
First you say religion isn't a hypothesis. Then your next sentence says it is. For point of reference, a hypothesis is an educated guess based on observation and possibly some knowledge. Nothing more. Nothing less. So the "belief" in God qualifies. As does the "belief" in the Big Bang. Since neither has definitive evidence to back it up.
As my original post said, in a few years you'll know for sure anyhow. Why lose any sleep over it. Or waste cyberspace ink on it for that matter.
neither has definitive evidence to back it up.
The 2.7K microwave background would tend to disprove this hypothesis.
Actually about 2,000 years ago Lucretius in his 'De Rerum Natura' proposed the Big Bang Theory a bit before Hawking. Of course there still is a Flat Earth Society and people who think the Earth is the centre of the universe.
Most science books keep telling us all life is carbon based and never tell you about those silicon based beasties living near deep sea vents. Never dare to think there might be life on other planets.
Everyone can have their own opinions but not be so quick to say theirs is the only correct answer to things.
people who think the Earth is the centre of the universe.
and don't forget the people who think they're the center of the universe.
people who think the Earth is the centre of the universe.
Until we find spacefaring sentient life on other planets, that view remains to be disproven.
AJ
that view remains to be disproven.
That view is correct for a certain perspective.
As best we know the universe is infinite in every direction. Given that, either it has no center, or every single point could validly be considered the center of the universe.
Yes, the Earth is in the center of the universe, because everywhere is the center of the universe and the Earth is a subset of everywhere.
That view is correct for a certain perspective.
I wasn't thinking of the physical centre but the cultural centre. Every culture considers itself to be the centre of the universe until it encounters a superior one.
AJ
As best we know the universe is infinite in every direction.
Wouldn't that be difficult to reconcile with a big bang? I think the currently estimated size of our universe's inflation limit is some 93 billion light years in diameter. Unless of course you are counting the surrounding 'nothingness' as part of our universe.
Granted our universe is immense. We cannot see far enough to view any portion of its outer border. With that in mind, how do we know our universe is the only one in existence?
Unless of course you are counting the surrounding 'nothingness' as part of our universe.
I would. Unless you accept the theory that's been put out by one or two cosmologists that it's not just stars/galaxies moving apart, but that space/time itself is expanding, then it has to be expanding into something (even if that something is a void) and yes, I would consider that something/void to be part of the universe.
that something is a void
Isn't it like the saying that cold doesn't exist because it is the absence of heat? Surely, like 'cold', 'void' is just a convenient nomenclature for the absence of something, and is not in itself a thing. If it is not a thing in its own right, how can it be part of something else, like a universe?
Also, if you want to use 'universe' with its earliest meaning, as being 'everything', you would need to discount the multiple universe, and brane concepts as well. N'est-ce pas?
if you want to use 'universe' with its earliest meaning, as being 'everything', you would need to discount the multiple universe
Using the 'earliest meaning' of anything is often pointless since later knowledge (or accepted theory) often proves the 'earliest meaning' to be incorrect.
Isn't it like the saying that cold doesn't exist because it is the absence of heat? Surely, like 'cold', 'void' is just a convenient nomenclature for the absence of something
Not quite, by current theory, space/time itself is a thing with structure. In this case, void is a description of empty space/time. A box doesn't stop being something just because it's empty, neither does space/time.
Also, if you want to use 'universe' with its earliest meaning, as being 'everything', you would need to discount the multiple universe, and brane concepts as well. N'est-ce pas?
No, I'll have to at least partially disagree.
1. Neither multiple universes nor the brane theory can be proved or in any way tested given current technology.
2. Under multiverse theory, each universe has it's own distinct and separate space/time and different laws of physics. Even if they exist, travel between them might not be possible, so the other universes might as well not exist from the perspective of the occupants of any one universe, so no, in this case, I would say the earliest meaning of universe would not have to be discounted.
3. I don't know that much about brane theory, but from what I do understand is that the branes exist in some kind of larger "space", so in this case you are probably correct.
A box doesn't stop being something just because it's empty, neither does space/time.
But isn't a box notionally an enclosure? A void isn't an enclosure as I understand the meaning.
Of course, a void might not be 'empty' either if you subscribe to the current spate of aether theories.
avoid a void.
Impossible..!!
The universe is of course flat and therefore as it expands it falls over the edge, where be dragons.
Since dragons do not have infinite stomach capacity, every so often they must void...
Of course when two dragon turds collide there is a big bang and.....
Impossible..!!
The universe is of course flat and therefore as it expands it falls over the edge, where be dragons.
Since dragons do not have infinite stomach capacity, every so often they must void...
Of course when two dragon turds collide there is a big bang and.....
Makes as much sense as Genesis...
I have the thought once in a while that I'm playing a total immersion game and one of the tests is to see how much stupid stuff the game can make me believe. If I believe based only on the word of others that the entire universe came from a microscopic point, all my friends at school will laugh at me and I'll never live it down.
If I believe based only on the word of others that the entire universe came from a microscopic point, all my friends at school will laugh at me and I'll never live it down.
Whereas, some deity waving his hand around makes perfect sense? Which of the 3000 or so gods man has worshipped do you think created the Universe? I know - 2999 of them are false gods except for yours...
I know - 2999 of them are false gods except for yours...
Well that depends, yes, if he follows a monotheistic religion, but no if he follows a pantheistic religion.
If you actually go back through history, pantheism is far more common than monotheism.
Sure, the majority religions today are all monotheistic, but there are still a few pantheistic religions with active adherents, Hindu and Shinto, to name two.
In some pantheistic religions, it isn't even one of the actively worship gods that created the world, but a primordial predecessor to the gods.
Ancient Greek mythology for example. The creators are Chronos (Time, not to be confused with Kronos), and a goddess of inevitability (whose name I don't recall and don't feel like looking up).
They gave birth to the Titans, of whom Kronos god of entropy and the destructive aspect of time was the first.
Kronos fathered Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades among others, but he ate all his other children until Zeus Poseidon and Hades nuked him.
Who said anything about a deity? That only gets you to where did the deity come from? No many how many universes/creations you go back, my ultimate question is why was there ever a single Higgs boson or other particle rather than nothing?
But I was referring to something else.
I know. My answer was equal parts disambiguation and sarcasm.
But isn't a box notionally an enclosure? A void isn't an enclosure as I understand the meaning.
No, but space/time itself. arguably is a form of container/enclosure. A void doesn't imply the absence of space/time, merely that that section of space/time is empty.
that section of space/time is empty
It has always been my understanding that the area between large celestial bodies contains dust and debris. Is that empty?
It has always been my understanding that the area between large celestial bodies contains dust and debris. Is that empty?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25378/how-vacuous-is-intergalactic-space
Sure, inside the solar system, inside the gravity well of another star, or a nebula. However interstellar space is mostly just hydrogen plasma, but the average density is 1 atom per cubic centimeter, that's pretty empty. And at the outer reaches of our galaxy the density of the interstellar plasma can drop to 0.1 atoms per cubic centimeter.
the density of the plasma in intergalactic space is on the order of 1 atom per cubic meter.
Now, if all the energy and mater in the universe, came from a single point explosion that's expanding into empty space/time, how much matter and/or energy do you think exists out beyond the farthest galaxies?
However interstellar space is mostly just hydrogen plasma
From the context, it sounds like interstellar space meands between solar systems. God only knows how much debris leaves one solar system headed for another. So your assertion of 1 atom per cubic centimeter seems unrealistic.
Our scientist may have made some educated guesses, but no one has been there to sample and measure the density.
I looked at your 5 links.
What I observed is they define the techniques used and address the results.
What I did not see was anything indicating that the techniques produced accurate results. Someone has to go there and measure the density using known methods that have proven as accurate and compare the results to the results of the unproven techniques.
You need to keep in mind, scientist know that what they believe is valid. Of course, in the past scientists knew the Earth was flat and the sun went around the Earth. Who knows what scientists will believe 500 years from now.
Who knows what scientists will believe 500 years from now
All scientific theories are approximations. As science progresses those approximations are improved, replaced or added to. That is the nature of scientific progress. Anyone that says a scientific theory is the last word in accuracy is no scientist, or has some ulterior motive for saying so.
Flat Earth to spherical earth is a big step for those that get advantage from the populace believing the Earth is flat :-)
(Replace 'flat/spherical' with 'natural/human warming' at your own risk)
Who knows what scientists will believe 500 years from now.
More accurately, who knows what scientists will learn in the next 500 years to expand our knowledge and understanding of the Universe. Some Theories will be upheld. Others will be discarded in the face of new information. Completely new theories will be presented. Belief is a fundamental of religion, not science.
I agree that a great deal will be learned in the next 500 years. The current theories and techniques for gathering data will change.
That is why we should not take an absolute stance on what is believed to be true today being the final word on what it true.
My original point was the techniques being used to determine the density of matter in the 'void' has not been proven to be accurate. Thus we should not accept the values today's scientists are putting forward as accurate. I think they may be accurate, or close, but who knows when an unproven technique is used to produce those values.
Of course, in the past scientists knew the Earth was flat and the sun went around the Earth.
Those beliefs were part of the official dogma of the Catholic church at the time, and to speak differently was heresy - not the consensus of any group of scientists.
When those beliefs were widespread, there were few people who could be called scientist as we use the word, and their methods bore very little resemblance to the methods of modern scientists. The very word 'scientist' was not coined until 1834 by Cambridge University historian and philosopher William Whewell. The Scientific Method of research is a relatively recent development in human history.
Those beliefs were part of the official dogma of the Catholic church at the time, and to speak differently was heresy
Burn the heretic!
Galileo got off very lightly, only being forced to recant by the Inquisition and a life sentence of house arrest.
You need to keep in mind, scientist know that what they believe is valid. Of course, in the past scientists knew the Earth was flat and the sun went around the Earth. Who knows what scientists will believe 500 years from now.
You realize that you're the one going, "No one has proven that measuring the angle of sunlight down a well is accurate! I'm not going to believe that Earth is round until someone walks around it!"
You realize that you're the one going
Perhaps the world would be a better place, if there were more people who question what they are told. Scientific principles change because someone questions the validity of what everyone else accepts as true.
You do realize that there is an organization in existence called The Flat Earth Society. They have seen photos taken of the earth from outer space that clearly depict earth's shape, and they still deny the earth is round.
There is a point when people should stop questioning a specific point. So far, that point hasn't been reached for the points I raised in this thread. However, I have no intent of pushing those points.
The Flat Earth Society. They have seen photos taken of the earth from outer space that clearly depict earth's shape, and they still deny the earth is round.
Made up of 99% internet Trolls and 1% morons. (I suspect I am overestimating the number of morons and underestimating the number of Trolls.)
I would. Unless you accept the theory that's been put out by one or two cosmologists that it's not just stars/galaxies moving apart, but that space/time itself is expanding, then it has to be expanding into something
No, it doesn't.
(even if that something is a void) and yes, I would consider that something/void to be part of the universe.
No. There isn't anything there. There isn't a void there. There isn't even nothing there. There isn't a there.
No. There isn't anything there. There isn't a void there. There isn't even nothing there. There isn't a there.
I was going to ask what definitive proof you have for that assertion... But...
I just keep picturing a couple of sperm floating inside a condom whilst it is being inflated, Both arguing what if anything is outside their 'universe'. Doubtless their argument will continue until it bursts. At which point neither will have time to celebrate being right, but one might regret the time lost doing things instead of pointlessly arguing about something they can neither prove, change, or benefit from.
Or course you guys are much more advanced than a simple sperm, but the image lingers...
Flat Earth Society
Just take a look at the UN flag, even the globalists recognize that the world is actually flat.
Sometimes I imagine that I'm a teenager in the future playing a total immersion simulation game. One of the challenges is trying to convince the player to believe wildly improbable ideas. If you believe that all of the matter and energy in the universe came from a point smaller than the head of a pin, you lose 10,000 points and your friends will never let you live it down for the rest of you life.
Right now I'm sorry I made that post. This is one of those arguments that never gets settled, and is not appropriate for this forum.
Personally, I have my beliefs, and you are not going to change my mind. At the same time, I am not going to try to persuade you to change yours. I expect the same courtesy from others.
Personally, I have my beliefs, and you are not going to change my mind.
That's usually the way it works with every religion, and why the religious are so quick to shed blood to defend their beliefs. I'm done with this. People are arguing against Cosmology with less knowledge on the subject than they would get from an hour of watching PBS. The general anti-science attitudes prevalent today and reinforced in the pulpits of the self-serving religious leaders is going to be the destruction of our civilization.
The general anti-science attitudes prevalent today and reinforced in the pulpits of the self-serving religious leaders is going to be the destruction of our civilization.
That is being overly specific, anti-science does not necessarily mean religious - and vice versa.
People are arguing against Cosmology with less knowledge on the subject than they would get from an hour of watching PBS.
It would take several years for you to catch up. Instead of answers, you sling another barb. So you know, that is the typical response of the majority when they cannot answer the questions posed.
There are some fundemental flaws in cosmology that require suspension of several laws of physics for current hypotheses to work. Conservation of energy (1st law) being one of the more problematic ones.
a principle stating that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be altered from one form to another.
If it cannot be created or destroyed, then what did the universe expand into after the big bang?
Then there is the second law of thermodynamics. That little jewel throws a ten foot pipe wrench into the spokes of cosmological hypotheses. Where did that pinpoint get its organization to begin with?
In the end, both science and religion assume 'faith'. Neither one can irrefutably demonstrate their respective beliefs. As such, implying or stating someone is delusional, ignorant, or beneath your understanding or lack thereof, is rude in the extreme. Do not expect a warm reception when you speak down your nose to people.
With that, I'll exit this thread permanently. Please feel free to curse me later.
Conservation of energy (1st law) being one of the more problematic ones.
I suspect that in time that law will prove itself incorrect on the universal level. After all the universe continues to expand. On a planetary level, at least as far as Earth is concerned, it is still correct although I wouldn't be surprised if that proves itself incorrect too when the little knowledge we have increases.
I suspect that in time that law will prove itself incorrect on the universal level. After all the universe continues to expand.
My understanding may be a little out of date, but wasn't it proposed that after a few more billions of years that it would reverse, and start collapsing on itself? The compress back down and explode all over again - in a cycle that takes so long that humans are completely irrelevant.
My understanding may be a little out of date, but wasn't it proposed that after a few more billions of years that it would reverse, and start collapsing on itself? The compress back down and explode all over again - in a cycle that takes so long that humans are completely irrelevant.
I never heard of that hypothesis but anything is possible. In terms of the universe humans are indeed completely irrelevant. We are only in existence for less then a billionth of a second in terms of universal time. If we manage to keep our selfs from extinction maybe someday we will understand a little more. Looking at the world today I highly doubt we can avoid extinction. Luckily such things go slowly so I, my children, and grand-children won't be around to enjoy it ;)
Looking at the world today I highly doubt we can avoid extinction.
Maybe we can avoid it as long as the dinosaurs did. But I'm beginning to doubt it.
Maybe we can avoid it as long as the dinosaurs did. But I'm beginning to doubt it.
Numbers vary from source to source but it is estimated dinosaurs were around for roughly 200-250 million years. It looks like we are not gonna survive even a tiny portion of that time. It's mostly the lack of morality and integrity of people in power in both governments and companies that are too big.
wasn't it proposed that after a few more billions of years that it would reverse, and start collapsing on itself?
This is one of the big questions: is the universe 'open' (expand forever) or 'closed' (slowing expansion, reverse, big crunch). All experiments so far give inconclusive results which are consistent with 'flat', sandwiched between open and closed the same way that a parabola is sandwiched between a hyperbola and an ellipse.
Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
The three laws of thermodynamics can be paraphrased:
1) you can't win
2) you can't break even
3) you can't get out of the game.
The general anti-science attitudes prevalent today and reinforced in the pulpits of the self-serving religious leaders is going to be the destruction of our civilization.
I agree we live in an age of anti-science, but IMO the biggest danger comes from those who (falsely) claim their personal opinions are 'evidence-based'.
AJ
As one of the antagonists, I apologise. I don't share your beliefs but I think they should be respected nevertheless.
I have to admit I enjoy robust philosophical debates about religion - I don't know the answers but I find some of the points raised to be mind-broadening. I just hope things don't become personal and religion joins politics on the list of banned subjects.
(Elsewhere I'm currently participating in an interesting debate involving God, mathematics and free-will.)
AJ
I wonder that in Archaeology a thing is dated by the layer it is found in and the layer is dated by what is found there. So much for science. I personally would never denigrate anyone's religious beliefs and would be offended if they did mine.
in Archaeology a thing is dated by the layer it is found in and the layer is dated by what is found there.
Sadly, that shows a seriously poor understanding of dating techniques.
law of thermodynamics
"Why entropy is called arrow of time?
Overview. The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows for the entropy to remain the same regardless of the direction of time. ... The thermodynamic arrow is often linked to the cosmological arrow of time, because it is ultimately about the boundary conditions of the early universe."
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Or, as I learned in my technical writing class:
Time flies
You can't
They fly too fast!