Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

This sums up my view on god in a nutshell.

 

i watched qi where they showed an ant that had a parasite inside it and it forces them to climb up a branch and then has some spout come out its head and kills it, and stephen fry turned round and said if god really exists how can he create something so evil and cruel?

fair point, answers on a postcard lol

 

Humans are also manipulated by obligate parasites. Rabies is the best example. But the most common are colds and flu, when you think about it, although less dramatic.

Just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of examples like that from nature. Natural philosophers of the 19th century used the ichnuemon wasp as their canonical example. They are internal parasites (parasitoids) of caterpillars. They devour the caterpillar from the inside out, eating muscle and fat first. That they leave the nervous tissues until last means that the caterpillar remain helplessly 'alive' and 'conscious' (as conscious as a caterpillar can be) until the last moment, when the parasitoids burst out. Alien was inspired by these types of creatures.

Consequently, Natural Philosophers around the 1800s tried to explain the morality of Nature (and therefore God) in light of this 'evil' system. 'Pain' and 'suffering' are extremely common in Nature, which, as Tennyson knew, is 'red in tooth and claw'.

 

That wasn't my intent C, so happy to clarify.

It was a possibily unnecessary attempt at stopping any presumption that my argument came from an atheist position. I simply don't like being pigeon holed (Not that I think Dave would have been guilty of it), its just a reflex or personality quirk trying to anticipate another's view of me.

As you say nobody needs to apologise for a belief held and expressed as long as it isn't harmful to another.

I don't label myself an atheist because I don't believe there's been definitive proof put forward to prove a lack of a God or gods to use the label.

I don't label myself as having faith in a deity for exactly the same reasons.

So I distance myself from both positions if anything.

On a wider note:

Interestingly I think scientists are as they increasingly and intentionally enter popular culture, especially when publicly debating against say, creationist influence are, unintentionally lessening their credibility in the public eye. People see a tv personality first, scientist second and so equalise both sides of the argument. Professor Alice Roberts is a good example. By engaging with what they believe is a ridiculous position to hold they are in fact legitimizing that very view.

I understand why they do it but I think the general public trusted what an aloof and disengaged scientist had to say more instinctively than a cool hip Brian Cox type because they were seen as this smarter, separate group (same argument could be used for a priest I suppose). By using the same public forums or media forms as the religions particularly Tele evangelist types it becomes more about charisma than facts and evidence.

As much as I wish my physics teacher had have been as exciting and engaging as Cox, I'm not sure it does the area much good in regards to credibility.

Maybe it will balance out. Maybe the idea is, once a mind is engaged the detail will follow but going down the charismatic route could lead to a person choosing the charismatic creationist which is at odds with what the likes of Roberts wants.

 

Why such a limited response? Intellect is not limited maths or science.

As for experiencing awe then just try an imagine the first time you felt your mothers touch after you'd been born, the first time that you had a dream or looked out of your window and saw a new environment. Guess what you didn't need a scientist or mathematician around.

Just re-read the above and it sounds quite hostile - which was not the intent. I think that I was just trying to forward a non-scientific encounter with beauty. So apologies if it offended.

 

i love my sunsets, shame we don't get the same sort of skies they do elsewhere in the world.

anyone know the scientific reason why some countries have a better view of space than others, always fascinated me, but we don't seem to get the same view as others, or the weather is too cloudy to see **** all.

is it something simple like the way the world revolves around the universe, or we just positioned in the wrong part of the planet to see such views?

saying that remember 2003(?) ish when we had the eclipse, was at work and we was all allowed to go out, was quite surreal that experience.

 

Perhaps God does not want you to see! Sorry I couldn't resist that.

As for not seeing the universe then I think that probably has something to do with light pollution. The absolute best place that I have found for star-gazing is out at sea. To just lay on the deck and see what appears to be the whole of the heavens illuminated above you and the fogginess of the Milky Way is truly awe inspiring. All of that without binnoculars! However, it can aslo be cloudy and you see nothing!!

 

that's fair enough dave, don't want an argument on religion if i can help it lol, let you have that one

remember you saying on another thread while back about a bar in jamaica or somewhere like that you went to, is that where you are on about with being out at sea laying on a deck seeing the universe, or is it even this country, just best place is out at sea wherever.

 

I'm no astronomer but think Dave is spot on. Light telescopes are, I think (in my rather limited knowledge), sited where they are away from artificial light sources (minimizes atmospheric light pollution), as this minimizes the view of the stars -- sort of like trying to see into the garden through your window at night with the light on or off. They are also placed in high places, minimize other 'seeing' contaminants. It stands to reason that, as light reflects and refracts off liquid and solid particulate matter in the atmosphere, then the less of this is better (hence why the hubble telescope is in space). The atmosphere is thinner the higher up you go in elevation (e.g. up a mountain) and the higher you go in the world (latitude; as atmosphere is thicker at the equator, not sure if this is due to density or rotation/friction reasons?). Also, the less cloud cover you have obviously the better observation you get.

With respect to sunsets/sun rises, I'd guess at similar conditions, but obviously they look more impressive closer to the horizon due to perspective. Just like the moon looks massive when just visible over your house, but not when it's far over head in the night sky.

 

I'm a bit late to the party on this one so apologies to those who've been having decent discussion if my intrusion is superfluous.

I take issue with the emboldened bit because believing that there are no absolutes in science is an absolute in itself.

 

A bit like God's omniscience and omnipotence, JB? Could God think of something with his omniscience which he could not achieve with his omnipotence? Good question or pointless word play? I'll let you all decide for yourselves.

Sorry, I'm bored. Watching Man Utd v Palace. Bore draw, atm.

 

Sorry for the delay. From my experience anywhere out at sea where there is no other light sources to be seen will produce the results that you desire. However, you must also remember and allow for the phases of the Moon. As for sunsets, again in my experience then you not only need Sun but the right kind of cloud for the rays (and hence colours) to be seen. However, watching a large golden disk disappear into a darkening sea from a clear blue sky is also a great sight in its own right.

For me. Better than true sunrise is the false-dawn. An eerie half light touching shapes without truly identifying them and the hope of light to come - just like when you come out of a long period of storm!

I think its just being in the right place at the right time. Just as those in hot countries long to see snow, we feel cheated of other experiences.

 

If God is bound by the laws of logic, then you would have to explain how he can be bound by something he himself created (or, if he didn't create it, who did)?

 

2011 Lovejoy flew through the sun's atmosphere, not right right through the centre of the sun 120,000 km above the stellar surface. Sounds like a large distance but given the heat in direct sunlight on the moon then 120,000 km is nothing.
Video of it here.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/comet-lovejoy.html

The point is that a ice ball would not survive such a journey. To further mock the concept that comets are dirty snowballs that flare up when close to the sun, comet Holmes in I think 2005 or 2007 flared up when traveling away from the sun, yes, as it got further away, actually past Saturn, a deep freeze, then it flared up. It flared up to be the biggest visible object in the solar system, now that don't make a lick of sense if comets are made from ice, which they are certainly not, photos from deep impact show rock not ice, there is no ice. There has never been water detected on a comet even in samples taken by NASA of passing comets, EVER!

here we have photo of Tempel 1, note not a scap of ice on this comet, they hit this one with an 800lb copper projectile, 2 flashes, the second on impact, the first by electrical activity between the comet and projectile, NASA facts btw, these were predicted by the Thunderbolts project team but not expected by NASA given they thought they were firing at a snowball.

Where's the ice? And if there is no ice what makes a comet give off such a massive effect and also the tail, electrical activity between positive and negative bodies, that's what.

please log in to view this image

NASA's own results don't match the claims yet people still cling to the totally unfounded belief that comets are covered in ice and that they delivered most of the water to earth, again total nonsense.

 

Who created God? If nothing did, or he's always been around, then why not use Occam's razor to chop him out the equation to start with?

 

Here's the firing of the projectile, funny that a lump of ice gives off this kind of reaction to the copper projectile

please log in to view this image

In fact it's physically impossible. So the results shocked NASA because it threw their theories out of the window, so they went outside and brought the theories back inside.

 

Here we have a supposed volcano on Io, Jupiter's moon

please log in to view this image

That is an electrical arc, not a volcano, never in a million years is that a volcano.

 

Again Io's "volcano"

please log in to view this image

Only vanity and ego can say that is a freaking volcano

 

Mars scarring. This is not possibly caused by an impact of an asteroid

please log in to view this image

it is more consistent with being carved out by electrical arcing, plasma literally carved this out, you can see the uneven scalloped effect along the edges, an impact does not leave that behind.

More Mars

please log in to view this image

Another carved out feature, certainly no impact.

 

looks like a face to me

some aboriginal type drawing.