*updated description

Here's some follow up stuff:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16040655

"The planet, Kepler 22-b, lies about 600 light-years away and is about 2.4 times the size of Earth, and has a temperature of about 22C.
It is the closest confirmed planet yet to one like ours - an "Earth 2.0".
However, the team does not yet know if Kepler 22-b is made mostly of rock, gas or liquid."

From my understanding of relativity and space-time continuum, 587 light years at close the speed of light wouldn't take very long to those on the space-craft because of "time-dilation". However, to those not on the spaceship...well, they'd be LONG gone. Somebody want to back me up on that? Maybe somebody smart? >> ^zor:

OK now all you have to do is build a space ship that can go the speed of light, get on it, and ride for 587 years. sheesh!

We better get working on warp drive, it's 600 light years away, that's roughly 3,600 trillion miles.

The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."

Well, the reason the FBB was donating was to be listed as one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. That's what they were turned down for. Not only that, but they used to whole thing to garner publicity. So I am not feeling too much sympathy for them at this point.

I agree that the reason many people/organizations who donate large amounts of money is specifically to get on those lists. So yes, I am prepared to say that many on those lists are doing so for political reasons. Perhaps not all of them, but I would say probably the majority.

We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

Well, I think the problem that most believers have is that the stated goal of many atheists and atheists organizations is to remove religion from the public sphere or irradicate it entirely. The mouthpieces for the New Atheism say in no uncertain terms that people who have faith are pinheads and that religion is the worst thing to ever happen. It's certainly not a live and let live kind of attitude that is being promoted as representing atheism.

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!

Ahh, but I don't believe in coincidence.

Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.

Yes, and sadly, that is just scratching the surface. The bible for many seems to be book of allegory, filled with mere suggestions on how to live our lives, rather than the direct commands of God. That's why you'll find Christians in bars, Christians smoking weed, and Christians cheating on their taxes. More than that, false doctrine has invaded the church. A very popular one right now is the "Health, wealth and prosperity" gospel, which teaches that God only wants you to be rich, and people who are poor and suffering just don't have enough faith.

Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.

That is the thing, that it is all being done for show. It is not about salvation, or sanctification; it is about sterling and silver. This is what is truly harmful, that the public face of Christianity is so far astray from the true teachings of the bible. Light years away from it in fact. The airwaves are saturated with false teachers, who proclaim that God is the great ATM in the sky, and if you only send in some money He'll give you the pin number. They are wolves in sheeps clothing, preaching a man-centered doctrine, to tickle the itching ears of people who seek out teachers who will tell them what they want to hear. "No, you don't need to change! God loves you the way you are!" The bible is not so kind to such people:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray."

haha, yes..some of these translations are very poor/strange. I prefer the ESV, it is probably the best modern literal translation. The KJV can be a good supplement, because although it used less accurate manuscripts, its archaic language preserved some of the meaning that the more modern translations may have glossed over. bible.cc is a good site for comparing verses. Here's a good sermon on Matthew 6:5-6

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=813081634369


>> ^Ryjkyj:
The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."
We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.
>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.
As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!
Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.
Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray." <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileopen.gif">
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 6:2-3
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

@BoneRemake, @packo. I think people often make the mistake of thinking that the universe started as a bunch of energy/matter suspended and then exploding into an existing, infinite 3D space; but that is not the theory. It seems to me like the video that @packo linked to is partially suffering from this error--especially when it shows the universe as floating and expanding into a sea of "outside" stars (but it gets many things right--I am still glad you posted it, thanks). As I understand it, the big bang is meant to have *created* the dimensions (including time) and it is the dimensions themselves that are expanding, possibly "into" a higher dimensional space that we are not equipped to perceive.

The usual metaphor (presented by Steven Hawking, among others) is to think of the 2-dimenstional surface of a balloon as it inflates. 2D beings trapped on the surface of the balloon would observe that all points on the expanding surface are moving away from each other, but such people would be incapable of imagining into what, since they have no intuitive understanding of a third dimensions. The balloon also illustrates the concept of "finite yet unbound." The 2D balloon-surface citizen could travel forever in one direction on the surface and never find the boundary; instead he just goes eternally round and round on the balloon which, never the less, still has a finite area even though the border remains imperceptible to the 2d resident. It is possible that the universe is a 3d version of this.

Because it is space itself that is expanding (not matter expanding into existing space), the speed at which two objects "move" away from each other increases in relation to how much expanding space their is between the two objects. In reality, the objects are not moving apart as we normally think of it--space itself is just getting bigger in between them. This means that regardless of where you are in the universe, it will look like you are at the center of a huge explosion with everything else rushing away.

All points (and all space) in the universe were once at exactly the same place, a single point, which means that all points in the universe began in the center and, in a sense, still are at the center from their own perspective. At large distances, this speed adds up until it exceeds that of light, which means we will never see or visit objects that are currently more than X light years away; and the value of X is shrinking so that, in fact, the entire universe will eventually fall behind a relativistic curtain until all the galaxies and even stars disappear eternally from each others' view, with space filling in faster than light can catch up. This does not violate relativity, again because the objects are not actually moving faster than light, there is just a huge area of space growing between them.

I am less sure about this, but I think even the space between the atoms and subatomic particles might take on properties (such as an expanded Plank length) that eventually prevent such particles from getting close enough together for the electromagnetic/strong/weak/gravitational forces to function and that's the end of chemistry.

>> ^packo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV33t8U6w28&feature=related
about 3:35 is where it gives answers
sorry about the long intro before anything starts

I've always wondered if you would not just pop up in the middle of empty space if you time travelled without compensating for the fact that the earth is moving through at what like 1500 M/s through the solar system? And the solar system is orbiting the galactic centre. And the galaxy is moving away from all other galaxies (or vice-versa) as spacetime itself apparently expands. It all depends on how you think about frame of reference WRT your model of time-travel.

Like in Back to the Future, they travelled 30 years at a time. And they appeared to "portal/shunt" as opposed to "tunnel". It seems to me on a gut level like a portal or shunt would probably just dump you into empty space a fraction of a light year behind or ahead of the solar system if you jumped 30 years. A wormhole (Doctor Who or Bill and Ted style) is easier to imagine as being connected to the same "place" (according to what frame of reference I can't mentally peg down) in both times.

>> ^MichaelL:

>> ^shinyblurry:

There were about a hundred proofs in that series from all areas of science..typical of someone intellectually incurious, you pick one out and focus on that ignoring all the others..don't you get it..if even one of those are correct the theory of evolution can't be.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
OK, I watched it all and I have to say I am completely unmoved.
The only people who contend that radio-carbon dating is an exact science are people who don't know anything about it. The fact that carbon dating is inaccurate does not change that fact that it's the best method we have to try and determine the age of anything that precedes culture. You know what else is an inaccurate science: cancer treatment.
There are all sorts of reasons that carbon dating can get messed up, they are not hard to research, and no one out there, no one, is saying that they never get messed up. But it is still an infinitely better estimate than trying to determine the age of the Earth through someone's interpretation of scripture.
We need to use estimates all the time to try and paint our picture of the universe as we know it. If you look up the Andromeda Galaxy on wikipedia, wikipedia will tell you that the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light-years away. The fact is, that's our best estimate. It might be only 2 million light-years away, or it could even be 4 million. We use our best estimate and our best understanding of science as it works at that time.
I'm curious, does the bible say anything about the distance of the Andromeda galaxy from Earth?



Oh, my apologies, I thought you were asking me to watch the video. I'll see if I can't watch the whole series.

There were about a hundred proofs in that series from all areas of science..typical of someone intellectually incurious, you pick one out and focus on that ignoring all the others..don't you get it..if even one of those are correct the theory of evolution can't be.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
OK, I watched it all and I have to say I am completely unmoved.
The only people who contend that radio-carbon dating is an exact science are people who don't know anything about it. The fact that carbon dating is inaccurate does not change that fact that it's the best method we have to try and determine the age of anything that precedes culture. You know what else is an inaccurate science: cancer treatment.
There are all sorts of reasons that carbon dating can get messed up, they are not hard to research, and no one out there, no one, is saying that they never get messed up. But it is still an infinitely better estimate than trying to determine the age of the Earth through someone's interpretation of scripture.
We need to use estimates all the time to try and paint our picture of the universe as we know it. If you look up the Andromeda Galaxy on wikipedia, wikipedia will tell you that the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light-years away. The fact is, that's our best estimate. It might be only 2 million light-years away, or it could even be 4 million. We use our best estimate and our best understanding of science as it works at that time.
I'm curious, does the bible say anything about the distance of the Andromeda galaxy from Earth?

OK, I watched it all and I have to say I am completely unmoved.

The only people who contend that radio-carbon dating is an exact science are people who don't know anything about it. The fact that carbon dating is inaccurate does not change that fact that it's the best method we have to try and determine the age of anything that precedes culture. You know what else is an inaccurate science: cancer treatment.

There are all sorts of reasons that carbon dating can get messed up, they are not hard to research, and no one out there, no one, is saying that they never get messed up. But it is still an infinitely better estimate than trying to determine the age of the Earth through someone's interpretation of scripture.

We need to use estimates all the time to try and paint our picture of the universe as we know it. If you look up the Andromeda Galaxy on wikipedia, wikipedia will tell you that the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light-years away. The fact is, that's our best estimate. It might be only 2 million light-years away, or it could even be 4 million. We use our best estimate and our best understanding of science as it works at that time.

I'm curious, does the bible say anything about the distance of the Andromeda galaxy from Earth?

1. The logic is simple; The only true God could be the being that no one else created. If a God was created by something else, then he wouldnt be a God. This points to one true God.

The Universe had an absolute beginning, including all matter energy time and space. Therefore this points to a reality beyond the Universe, a transcendent non physical immaterial reality beyond space and time. This points to a supernatural cause.

How could something come from nothing? Only nothing can come from nothing. Therefore there had always had to have been something for there to be anything. This points to an eternal cause.

The Universe appears to be designed. The are dozens of physical constants which, if altered even slighty, would result in a lifeless Universe.

Two good examples:

Imagine a ruler 14 billion light years wide, which is the length of the Universe. It's divided into one inch increments, which is the range of settings for the strength of gravity. It just happens to be set in just the right place for life. If you move the setting one inch life to any other setting as compared to the length of the ruler, life becomes basically impossible.

The cosmological constant is finetuned to 1:1 with 53 zeros behind it. It has been compared to throwing a dart at the earth from orbit and hitting a bullseyes 1 trillion trillionth of an inch.

Taken together, their level of fine tuning is to a precision of 1 in one hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Which is like one atom out of the entire universe.

That's just the periphery of it..

2. Sounds like you were a pretty terrible Christian..you did as you were told and prayed a lot. lol. This a Christian does not make. The total actual knowledge you seem to have about Gods will, or what is in the bible, could probably fit on the head of a pin with room to spare. You ever stop to think that you never saw God because didn't have any real faith to begin with? Sounds like your parents didn't understand their own faith, therefore raised you in ignorance..you became worldly..and tada, you're an atheist. For the record, every ex-christian atheist I meet never knows shit about the bible..they're also usually ex-catholic.

3. It's not really your fault..you're just totally disillusioned. I wasn't raised Christian so I was never disappointed by it. I made an informed decision to become a Christian after God showed me definitively He is the God of the bible. Otherwise I would just be a theist.
Because you used to be a Christian, it's in Gods hands if He wants you back. Nothing I say to you is going to make any difference what so ever. All I can tell you is that I'll pray that God has mercy on you, though with comments like "non-existant facist dictator" I can tell you you aren't helping your case.


>> ^MaxWilder:
1. You have "stated" that there can be only one God, but you have not put any logic into it. Things are created by individuals, by teams of individuals, and by natural forces without any outside assistance. There is no reason to believe that the universe could only have been created by a single force, much less a single conscious entity. It is an unknown, and you don't have a shred of evidence or logic to indicate otherwise.
2. As I have already explained here and here, I was raised a Christian. I went to church. I did as I was told. I prayed for strength and guidance. And when my natural curiosity began to reveal the flaws in Christianity and the Bible, I prayed about it quite a bit. Over the course of many years. I got no response. God never revealed himself to me. So you can shove that "God will reveal Himself to you if you seek Him out" crap. It simply isn't true. You may think that God has revealed himself to you, but as far as I know that was a total hallucination brought on by some sort of temporary brain trauma. Unless the same thing happens to me, there is absolutely no reason for me to trust your word on the matter.
3. As far as spirituality in atheists goes, there is a huge spectrum. I can only speak for myself. I often find myself wishing for some sort of insight or revelation about the nature of the universe. But for the most part I am ok with not knowing. I understand that nobody really knows, and that comforts me a little. I still hope that there is something more to life after we die, but there's no way of knowing until after it's over, and I'm not going to waste my life hoping that there's something better afterward. So yeah, occasionally I still find myself in a "prayer-like" moment, hoping that there is some force out there that may help me solve a problem I'm facing. Then I get over it and start working on the task myself. Even if there was some sort of "miracle" that fixed what I was thinking about, that wouldn't mean it was Jesus! Again, there would still be no link between what I experience and the Bible, unless like you I had a hallucination about Jesus revealing the secrets behind the curtain. Heck, even if that happened I'd probably assume I had a brain injury and go see a doctor about it as soon as possible.
By the way, your little jabs like "It's obvious you don't really know anything about the bible, or even comparative religion." and "your viewpoint is not very sophisticated" are called Ad Hominem attacks. They fail to make any point. I know I occasionally will throw in an insult when I'm feeling weak, so I don't take it personally. Just be clear that you are dodging my points without answering them whenever you dismiss them like that. To quote you, "you're just making yourself look foolish", "childish at best", and "not very sophisticated". Sheesh, this coming from a guy who seriously thinks satanists on a website are throwing spells around. Holy crap. Keep it up man, you are making my case for me.

There is another solution that allows for time travel and does not involved paradoxes.

Simplifying it, it goes like this:

1. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but we can travel as close to it as possible, neglecting the technological issues.

2. You engineer a wormhole, a Time Tunnel into the past using some sort of as-yet unknown technology.

3. Entering the wormhole at one end with your space/time machine, you emerge ten years in the past (say from 2011 to 2001), TEN LIGHT YEARS AWAY from earth.

4. Immediately, you set out to return to earth at the speed of light (less an infinitesmal amount).

5. You would arrive back at earth in 2011 just seconds/minutes/hours after you entered the Time Tunnel the first time. Because you emerged so far from Earth there was/is nothing you could have done to change or affect your past. You couldn't kill your parents in the past, you couldn't have stopped yourself from entering the Time Tunnel...

I suspect that we'll find that time travel via wormholes is possible but that wormholes will only form in such a way that the two ends cannot lead to paradoxes being created.

This means that we will still never be able to travel to see dinosaurs. Travel back in time 65 million years and you will emerge 65 million light-years away. Travel back to earth and you will still only arrive just after you entered the other end of the time tunnel.

Hence we will also never see future time travelers in our time, including killer cyborgs from the future.

Funny stuff. Loved the imitation of a singing voice coming through a Victrola... But do I correctly perceive Izzard saying that the download is going to take a 'light-year' to finish? Did anybody else's inner science nerd balk at that usage of the term?

Mr. Izzard,

Thank you first and foremostly for your wonderful humour.

Secondarily, I would like to respectfully point out that a light-year is a measurement of distance, not time. It is the length of space that a beam of light traverses in a year. When you use it as a measurement for time a little piece of my sciency heart dies, so I would appreciate it if you could at all avoid it.

Thanks,
My Inner Nerd

>> ^ant:

Rage doesn't look that good to me. I hope I am wrong!



Yeah I guess we'll have to wait and see. I like the setting even though recently it's getting a tad overused, though Borderlands was really mind-numbing in my opinion. I saw a video of the AI in RAGE and it looked pretty neat.

It's funny, most of the AI in games these days are shit. I feel like the AI in the original Thief is light-years beyond a lot of the garbage out there right now. Maybe it's been that too many games rely on the Unreal engine and pre-fab AI - I don't know. Because even in games that should have killer AI like Splinter Cell: Conviction the AI isn't all that interesting.

"God's justice" includes stoning people for a variety of offenses including a woman not being a virgin on her wedding night, and disobeying your parents; very specific rules on how to take, keep and treat slaves; supposedly wiping out nearly every creature on Earth; and condemning all of humanity for sin in the first place. No, I don't want God's justice, thank you very much.

You, like many Christians, seem to have this misguided idea that all atheists want to do is have hedonistic orgies and go on Christian killing sprees, when in fact atheists are usually the ones that understand that, in reality, we only have one short life and we must all work together as a species on this tiny, fragile, blue spaceship, whizzing alone through the cosmos with nothing else around us for light-years. It's the religious fantasy of an afterlife and the proper way to get to the proper afterlife that keeps everyone segregated into factions, with everybody at each other's throats.
>> ^shinyblurry:

They want Gods justice but not His punishment.

Or catering to ignorance. >> ^kceaton1:

...shit, cock, god-damnit..!
She eerily (with hair up) looks like a younger, but better looking Sarah Palin. So I'd say we now know what it would be like if Sarah Palin was actually a troll.
...wait a minute, this is how Sarah Palin acts! She's either a "non-believer", using masterfully created sarcasm, a Russian spy, or the dumbest of "some of" the "believers" on the planet!
At least in a good four light year radius.