You CANNOT prove the non-existence of something like this! It's the same old Celestial Teapot, Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster issue! As with my laser eyes, prove that they don't exist! It is a ridiculous thing to even request!

@xxovercastxx

I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

Apparently, if the other Universes had different physics, it would be impossible to detect them anyway. So to me it's a fairly useless supposition. So, just one Universe and nothing but the material.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

Time and space had a beginning at the big bang, so really it would always be impossible to measure it. The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material. It's creation ex nihilo..IE, creation from nothing. Which funnily enough happens to uniquely support the judeo-christian belief.

How does something from from nothing? Only nothing can come from nothing..So therefore, if time and space had a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space which created it. These have always been identified as Gods attributes, of existing outside of time and space in an eternal continuim with no beginning or end. Isn't a transcendent creator necessitated here?

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted? Without an independent existence from the body, IE the soul, this seems to be the conclusion you're left with.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness. In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

Putting aside, for a moment, your apparent war on etymology, what if you believe the universe is a simulation running on a computer? What if you believe it was created by an advanced alien race? According to you, these people would be theists.

Well, you could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false. And if the Universe was simulated, the question is meaningless..but point taken..the better question is..Was the Universe deliberately Created by supreme being?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, I'll bite. Since you don't want to discuss what the bible says, I'll delve into your world. Do you believe there is only one Universe, many Universes or infinite Universes? Do you only believe in material reality, or do you think there could be other dimensions or planes of existence that transcend it? Basically, what is your cosmology/model of reality? How do you think consciousness works? Do you believe in morality and how do you determine what it is?


I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

OK, forget about Ellenin or whoever, and forget about the esoteric references.

If these God names are just the names given to celestial bodies such as planets, comets or whatever is out there. Could it be possible that these Gods and stories are just reminiscences of past Astronomic occurrences?

A few thousand years ago, the tools used to record these events (ink, parchment) were quite archaic and nothing used stood the test of time. Most histories were passed on through word of mouth and we've all played that game. Occasionally someone would write an interpretation down but buy that time, the stories were already twisted.

The question: Can there be truth in the concept that the continental shifts and consequently the disasters be the result, or at least influenced by the gravity of these celestial bodies? And if so, can these events be predicted (scientifically) by studying these cosmic events?

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I want to add something to this comment. The estimates that celestial body will pass through the keyhole are 1 and 250,000. Not likely but still enough to warrant a good looking at. Perhaps when DeGrasse made this video it was still consensus that it was a 1 in 37 chance of passing into the Keyhole. That doesn't seem to be the case now. But that's not to say it can't happen, it's highly unlikely.

Astronomers have identified an asteroid named Apophis that was once estimated to have a 2.7% (1 in 37) chance of striking the earth in 2029. Further observations and revisions of the estimated path of the asteroid have resulted in an estimated 1 in 250,000 chance (0.0004%) of impact in 2036.[1][2] Apophis is estimated to be as large as 1,300 feet (400 m) across, and could cause millions of casualties if it were to hit Earth.[3] Astronomers think that Apophis will most likely miss a 2,000-foot (610 m) wide keyhole in 2029 which, if passed through, would cause it to hit Earth in 2036.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_keyhole#The_Apophis_Deflection

Ok, ok, ok. 2029 it may thread the keyhole, in which the next time it comes around 2036 would be BOOM! Excellent I can't wait. Shit that means I'll be about 50 years old! Fuck! A lot can happen between now and then.

On Friday, April 13, 2029, Apophis will pass Earth within the orbits of geosynchronous communication satellites.[10] It will return for another close Earth approach in 2036.

Precovery observations from March 15, 2004 were identified on December 27, and an improved orbit was computed.[11] Radar astrometry further refined the orbit. The 2029 pass will actually be much closer than the first predictions, but the uncertainty is such that an impact is ruled out. Similarly, the pass on April 13, 2036 carries little risk of an impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

It's traveling at 30.728 km/s. Cars generally travel at Km/h. That's about 20 miles per second, and about 32187 Meters per second. If the speed of sound is 343.174 meters per second, then 32187/343.174 would mean that Apophis is traveling at 93 times the speed of sound. Which is just a comparison because things in space tend to have different physics than things inside an atmosphere.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+sound
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+miles+per+second
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=32187%2F343.174

I propose we all call his office to inquire about rumors we read on the internet regarding the moon cheese hypothesis. Further, we should request a law which requires the moon to demonstrate its celestial origins.

Friction is a killer, if only celestial bodies lubed up before entry.

Celestial ejaculate.

Like, I can totally relate to other celestial bodies an'shit when considering the size of my own, dude...you haven't crawled until you've walked in the sun, maaaan..

>> ^csnel3:
Yes, rougy, I think I get it.

Fair enough. But you have to admit, it's two different worlds. I'm in Roswell, NM. Aside from the celestial alien problem, we have a crime rate that is disturbingly high, and cops who are sometimes not very thoughtful, because they're underpaid and overworked. Hate to say it, but true.

Ace up there noted that I noticed, as did millions of other people, that a man set himself afire in order to draw attention to an injustice...so I guess his effort was a success...in as much as it drew attention. Did it solve the problem that he gave his life to protest against? Probably not.

That's a pretty big deal, to have that kind of dedication, to believe in something so strongly that you would voluntarily suffer one of the most cruelest fates known to man.

I'm not being cheeky, but the closest thing I can think of is when Data gave his life for Picard.

Vietnam was the prototype to Iraq and Afghanistan. And our country, the USA, is in a lot of trouble because we are watching people rob us blind and we are powerless to stop it because our government is inept and corrupt beyond remediation.

The war machine learned quickly, while the best that we can do is sit around and bitch.

Very cool.

First, I was surprised how large our moon was in comparison to Earth (relatively speaking -- if I were to draw relative sizes of how I guessed they compared, I'd have pegged the moon with half the diameter). Then, I was surprised that the sun wasn't larger in comparison to the planets (I'd have guessed 30% bigger diameter). And then my mind was blown by the sun, an object so immense that it is basically beyond the limit of my human comprehension, being dwarfed by other stars.

I guess the scientific part of my mind has always been best suited towards understanding Biology. With animals there is variation between members of a species, but their physical characteristics generally fall into a bell curve without an extremely high standard deviation; the tallest human to ever live won't be orders of magnitude larger than the shortest. I guess I had been tempted to think of celestial bodies as falling into groups like "species" in animals: asteroids, planetoids, solid planets, gas giants, stars. Clearly I'll have to rethink that, because there aren't many ants the size of a house running around.

I wonder how the physics of things like solar flares, etc. works on those super massive stars -- do their flares scale up in size in a direct linear scale with diameter or mass, or are any increases bound by a more logarithmic scale?

Anyway, thanks for the good sift!

I love the way he approaches explaining a celestial phenomenon from an angle that americans can understand. Pizza.

Please note my avatar --->

Glad to help!

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
Bill-O The Clown: "THAT'S FASCISM!"
Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "

>> ^doremifa:
Didn't astronomers find out that the Earth was created in ~6.75 days based on red shift analysis?


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought red shift analysis was how you determined the distance of a celestial body from the viewer? The farther away the more the light spectrum shifted to the red. Or is my Sarcasm filter on the fritz again?

Bill-O The Clown: "THAT'S FASCISM!"
Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "

>> ^doremifa:
Didn't astronomers find out that the Earth was created in ~6.75 days based on red shift analysis?


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought red shift analysis was how you determined the distance of a celestial body from the viewer? The farther away the more the light spectrum shifted to the red. Or is my Sarcasm filter on the fritz again?