Obama's fault!

The article was a fun read but I think our current state of technology is about as close to doing this as the first trilobites 540 million years ago were to building the space shuttle.

I don't purport to understand Einsteinian equations, but if old Al's math calls the speed of light the ultimate speed, that's enough for me. It would SEEM that if the speed of light can be transcended, someone would have gotten here by now. (Hello Roswell.) Like if time travel were ever to be, someone from the future would have gotten here by now. Maybe we'd better PRETEND that this time and this planet is all we have. herm

"The article was a fun read but I think our current state of technology is about as close to doing this as the first trilobites 540 million years ago were to building the space shuttle.
#2 | Posted by axe at 2009-05-06 05:08 PM"

Maybe with sufficient "ammonites-tease"...

"Warp Drive Not impossible"

It is Unless it Runs on Gas!

Sincerely
The "republican" party of No Ideas

#5 | Posted by Redneckville

It surely wont be run on clean fuels,

--- Feinstein

Well not in my back yard

#5 | Posted by Redneckville

Did your welfare check come last week?

Even with a warp drive, you still won't be able to get anywhere fast in houston traffic.

"Even with a warp drive, you still won't be able to get anywhere fast in houston traffic."

#8 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2009-05-06 07:43 PM

Back in the early 70's when I was at KLOL in Houston we used to do bogus commercials.

BUY ACME FREEWAY-TO-FREEWAY MISSILES!
GET HOME MORE OFTEN!

Mr. Scott has passed away and will not be beaming anyone anywhere. He can simply not get anything more out of "her". RIP Scotty.

Mr. Scott has passed away and will not be beaming anyone anywhere. He can simply not get anything more out of "her". RIP Scotty.

Damn! That's two double posts in a row. Not my fault!

"Did your welfare check come last week?

#7 | Posted by chickenrancher "

Sounds like you forgot to tip your mailman at Christmas.

Sounds like you forgot to tip your mailman at Christmas.

#13 | Posted by LetUsPrey

His wife takes care of the mailman.
The paperboy too.

I am not going to hold my breath on this happening until scientists have not only proven the existence of the Higgs boson, but figured out how to harness it.

For once I at least partially agree with Herm. Although I think he is wrong with his rationale on space travellers and time travellers. They could already be coming here but keeping a relatively low profile. People have been talking about alien visitations for years. While I don't necessarily believe it, I won't discount it entirely either.

As for time travellers, they would most likely keep their existence hidden from our knowledge until such time as a time machine is invented simply to avoid a paradox. Once a time machine was invented paradoxical situations from the knowledge would be more of a moot point since both the present and future have the technology.

Time travel never is invented because at no time has anyone claimed to come back from the past so far and predicted the future correctly and consistently. Given that it has never happened yet, and there are plenty of events that a time traveler would want to see, this is a fairly safe assumption IMHO.

come back from the future rather, not the past.

come back from the future rather, not the past.

I have a time machine and I can travel from the past to the future. My time machine is called a clock, and I can travel forward in time at a rate of 60 minutes per hour.

I am tired, but you get my point =P

Time travel never is invented because at no time has anyone claimed to come back from the past so far and predicted the future correctly and consistently.

They wouldn't if they were concerned about advance knowledge creating a paradox at a time when the technology hadn't been invented yet.

After time travel is invented they would be free to make themselves known because we would already have the technology to get the advanced knowledge ourselves. Staying hidden would be pointless at that point in time.

Anyway, why would the be coming from the past if they were predicting the future, and why would it be necessary for them to have come from the past if time travel is invented in the future?

Got you... strike the question about coming from the past then. Thanks for the correction.

#20 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-06 10:45 PM |

I messed up...I am tired. Allow me to repost that with the right concept.

Time travel never is invented because at no time has anyone claimed to come back from the FUTURE so far and predicted our future correctly and consistently. Given that it has never happened yet, and there are plenty of events that a time traveler would want to see, this is a fairly safe assumption IMHO.

at no time has anyone claimed to come back from the FUTURE so far and predicted our future correctly and consistently.

A real time traveller wouldn't for fear of creating a paradox caused by giving us advanced knowlege. Once we invented time travel for ourselves they would be able to make their presence known because they couldn't tell us anything we wouldn't be able to find out on our own.

I say they would actively keep their presence hidden. A time traveler from the future would be in constant worry of altering the past. Considering the fact that we don't have time travel yet, we don't know what limitations may be attached to the technology that might make correcting a mistake difficult or impossible.

So your idea that just because we don't know of them means they don't exist is faulty logic. It makes leaps the logic can't follow.

It isn't exactly Star Trek, though. The ship or whatever is sort of like a bubble riding on a wave. You can't steer it, and whatever is inside is probably trapped beyond the event horizon of a black hole - making one of these things would probably make black holes (and would require an energy source capable of warping spacetime over large distances).

MOOMAN

Have you ever read "The Philadelphia Experiment"?

But cool, nonetheless. Live long and prosper.

Red Dwarf dealt with time travel as dimension jumping for the most part. It was explained that everything happens at once, but we go through it linear and that every choice creates a new dimension where the other choice was made.

It was explained that everything happens at once

I believe that myself. IOW, there is no past, present, or future when considering 4d spacetime

I would think it would be virtually impossible to build something that could go faster than the speed of time. It seems like the faster one goes the faster the time would travel.

Larry

It seems like the faster one goes the faster the time would travel.

Didn't Einstein say time was constant? I was bad at science.

Have you ever read "The Philadelphia Experiment"?

Actually no. I am familiar with story, but haven't read the book. I also don't place much stock in the idea. I don't think we have the knowledge even now to time travel, never mind having had it back then.

If we had the technology to even bend time to any great degree, never mind control it to the degree necessary for the story to be true, this discussion about warp drives would be moot as we would already be traveling the stars.

Space/Time are called that because they are part of the same thing. If you can control time to that degree, you would also necessarily have the control of space needed to already do what this article suggests.

It seems like the faster one goes the faster the time would travel.

Actually the opposite is true, Larry

Didn't Einstein say time was constant?

No, he said just the opposite. He said it is relative (hence relativity) His Special Theory dealt with time relative to moving objects. His General Theory dealt with time in an acceleting field or gravity (they are the same)

Time within the event horizon of black hole has come to halt as view by an outside observer -- which is impossible since light can't escape a black hole.

GOATMAN

Did they show your elementary class the animated movie about the theory of relativity where one twin brother travels at the speed of light and returns looking as he did, while his brother was an old man? Made E=MC 2 easy to understand.

Told you I was bad at science =D

Have you ever read "The Philadelphia Experiment"?

Have you ever seen "Superman"?

Have you ever seen "Superman"?

I thought I did once, but it was just a bird...or a plane.

Kanrei I would say it like this. We only understand time to be what a clock puts out and measures. Time is a man made invention in order to be able to determin how long a period of space happens. Take each one of the planets and their times would not be measured like earths time. We recognize that our earth rotates on it's axis in 24 Hour approximate intervals. It wouldn't be the same on Mars nor Uranus. I would say time is relative to the one measuring it.

Larry

Who hasn't seen Superman?

The Philadelphia Experiment was a good book. I doubt it happened, but the book was a good read nonetheless.

Time is a man made invention in order to be able to determin how long a period of space happens.

Time as in "it is 5:00" is man made, but time as in "it will take 10 minutes to get from a to b" I have a hard time seeing as man made. Not saying it isn't, just that I have a hard time seeing that.

Have you ever seen "Superman"?

#36 | Posted by eberly

I liked Damon Wayans "Handiman" character on In Living Color better LOL

That was a classic skit.

Speaking of time, it is past my bedtime. Good night.

Did they show your elementary class the animated movie about the theory of relativity where one twin brother travels at the speed of light and returns looking as he did, while his brother was an old man?

Yes. The twin paradox is the classical example of the Special Theory

#37

FF

I would say time is relative to the one measuring it.

That is true, Larry, but not for the reasons you give.

Time as in "it is 5:00" is man made, but time as in "it will take 10 minutes to get from a to b" I have a hard time seeing as man made.

You are right, of course, Kanrei. Larry is confusing the measuring of time with time itself.

Hey I am all for speed of light travel.

I love Ender's Game and all the following sci-fi gifts from Orson.

But we don't have the technology--or the means to do it.

We don't have the ability to survive the time that would elapse from Point A to Point B.

We don't have anything for warp speed.

My Dad is a helicopter pilot and he loved the inspiration of warp speed and beaming up--but alas--it is not in our lifetime--more like several.

I find the concept of our limited perception of time easier to understand as a function of Space.

Dimension one: A single point with no height, width, or depth.

Dimension two: a box with height and width, but no depth... like a box drawn on a paper.

Dimension three: a cardboard box... a cube with height, width, and depth.

Dimension four: the same box, but with all of its changes over the length of time.

Unfortunately we are three dimensional beings so we can't fully see or comprehend the entire 4th dimension. We can only see the part touching us.

To get an idea of what I mean... thing of a 2 dimensional being on a piece of paper. They can't see anything past their 2 dimensional world (paper surface). If you were to take a cube and move it through their paper, they wouldn't be able to see the whole cube, because it is 3 dimensional. They could only see the part that intersects with their world... the would only see a square.

We are like that with time. We can only see the part of it that currently intersects with what we can percieve. We can only see the present, not the full stream of time from "beginning" to "end".

I'm looking forward to knowing the answers to of all these mysteries minutes after I draw my last breath.

The point of that whole post being that Time and Space are all a part of the same thing. Hence the commonly used term Space/Time.

If you can control the fabric of one you can control them both.

If the Philidelphia experiment had truly happened the way the story says, we would already be traveling the stars.

Incidentally, I mentioned the Higgs boson (God Particle) because it is theorized to be the source of all mass, and since mass warps gravity, and gravity is a function of warping Space/Time, if we can prove the existence of the Higgs boson AND harness it, then we may have the means to warp Space/Time.

MOOMAN

I don't believe The Philadelphia Experiment happened as purported. The U.S.S. Eldridge wasn't there at the time the experiment allegedly happened, but it's still a really good read. The premise of the experiment according to the book was using electromagnetic fields to bend light and render the ship invisible. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

#48

You are right mooman. A sphere moving through a two dimensional plane would look like a point expanding into a circle, then back to a point and disappearing.

Likewise, a fourth dimensional sphere moving through three dimensions would look like (to us 3D critters) a tiny point in space expanding into an ever size increasing sphere, then shrinking to a point and disapearing.

Goatman,

More likely, it would look like the big bang.

That is to say we are still in the beginning stages of that 4th dimensional "sphere" passing through us. That is why we see the universe still expanding. That is the limited way our senses can percieve that 4th dimensional intersection.

That is why most sources will tell you that time didn't exist before the big bang. I think the more appropriate description would be that it DID exist, but it hadn't intersected in such a way that would be perceptable to a 3 dimensional being. After a sphere passing though that 2 dimensional world effectively didn't exist to the 2 dimensional being before it entered their perceptible dimension. That doesn't mean the sphere didn't exist outside of their perceptions.

I love this brain-cramp stuff.

A better example now that I think of it, would be an MRI.

If you as a 3 dimensional being moved through that 2 dimensional world, that is how they would percieve you. All they would see is this ever-changing mass of lines and sqiggles in various colors.

Sort of like this:

Incidentally, it is this very concept that makes me scoff at people that actively deny there is a "God".

Just as you can create on paper, and those theoretical 2 dimensional beings would not be able see you unless you purposely intersected their reality, I see no basis for assuming that 3 dimensional beings are the only kind there are in all of existence (taking the concept of multiple dimensions as inclusive in "existence").

Such a being would only be perceptible to use when they purposefully intersect with our reality. They would effectively be invisible to us unless they chose to make themselves known. In addition, that invisibility is only true from lower order to higher order. Just as we can see 2 dimensional objects, but such a creature wouldn't be able to see us, a higher order being would be able to see us even while invisible to us.

To take it even further, a higher dimensional being would by very definition exist in all time at once as function of being 4th dimensional or higher. Being as that is the case, they could also effectively be everywhere at once since 3 dimensional placement is a function of our place in time.

That sounds an awful lot like the common concept of "God".

Mind you, that is totally separate from religion. The theoretical 4+ dimensional being (or beings) would be indistinguishable from the criteria for a god, but that doesn't mean that any of the religion's concept of god is necessarily correct.

Which religion if any has it correct is the part that is based on faith.

So, to people that scoff at people that believe in a "magical invisible fairy"... I say why are you afraid of the science? While we can't prove such a being exist yet (and may never be able to do so), we can at least determine not only is it possible, it is statistically likely.

I sincerely believe many of the people who do not believe in G-d do so because they do not want a being to trump themselves. They do not want to feel like they aren't the Top Banana of the Universe.

Larry

I sincerely believe many of the people who do not believe in G-d do so because they do not want a being to trump themselves.

That is not the reason for my atheism, Larry.

People are by nature selfish and self-centered creatures. It takes effort to overcome that.

I believe you are right on that Larry. Most people aren't willing to deal with what it takes to overcome those tendencies and see themselves as the small fish in a big pond that they really are.

No matter how much they may understand it on some intellectual level, on a deeper more personal level the ego won't let them acknowledge the full meaning of it.

Goatman,

Atheism or agnosticism? One denies the existence, one denies the religion in effect.

I can understand an agnostic, since that is just admitting there could be a "god", but denying that it necessarily means we know what that "god" is and therefore denies that we even SHOULD worship it.

A true atheist won't even admit the possibility that such a being exist.

I think most proclaimed atheist are actually only agnostic.

Just so you know, Goatman, that was an honest inquiry without a hint of scoffing or sarcasm intended.

I have debated with you and against you enough on this forum that you have earned my respect as a person that puts a lot of thought into their positions. I might not always agree with you, but you have earned a reputation with me as someone that doesn't tend to hold a knee-jerk view. You have never shown me an ounce of disrespect, and I won't show you any either.

So if you say you are a true atheist rather than agnostic, I would genuinely love to hear how you arrived at that position.

Prayer?

I think most proclaimed atheist are actually only agnostic.

I've been told that before, so maybe it's matter of symantics.

I don't believe there is a god for the simple reason that this world is really fucked up with a lot of suffering people. I don't think an all loving god would allow his own creation to be wrapped up in the suffering I see.

ALso, if he exists and and wants me to believe in him, he would present clear and unambiguous evidence. I don't buy the, "Well just look at the beautiful flowers and birds. Only god could do that" argument. Let's see him pop into my presense in otherwise impossible circumstances and have a little chat with me, and I would believe. The fact that doesn't happen tells me that he is not that interested in whether I believe in him or not.

There's lot of other stuff, too, but I don't want to get into a full blown debate. As you've probably noticed, I generally steer away from those and have respect for the believers. Yes, I may challenge their views on evolution, e.g., but I will not criticize someone for believing in god.

I doubt it Boyd.

Prayer, if answered, proves existence at least to the person the received the response.

Prayer, if not answered, proves only that if there IS a being it chose not to answer for some reason.

Prayer, if answered, proves existence at least to the person the received the response.

Prayer, if not answered, proves only that if there IS a being it chose not to answer for some reason.

#64 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-07 12:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

You've got a tidy racket going there, Moo.

No. If prayers answered means "there is a god," then logically prayers unanswered mean "there is no god."

Joe-
I don't see how you and Goatman don't understand that you must begin with the premise of the existence of Moo's god....

I've been told that before, so maybe it's matter of symantics.

Yes and no. Yes it is semantics, but it is also the preciseness of our language. We have two words that deal with the concept for a reason, the each have a very specific meaning.

Sometimes semantics simply ensures that there is no confusion.

I don't think an all loving god would allow his own creation to be wrapped up in the suffering I see.

I can understand your point. I will address it from an agnostic perspective. If there is a god that created everything, who says that he has any more control over what happens to his creation that any artist? A painter's works can still be destroyed or deteriorate even though they put much time, effort, and love into the creation. We just don't know, agnostically speaking what limitations there may be for such an act of creation.

Look at the state of the painting of the Last Supper. Much care and love is put into trying to maintain it, but ultimately those efforts are doomed to fail in the grand scheme of things. Maybe we see the efforts to halt or slow the natural progression of things, but we are just as incapable of understanding what we see as those figures in the painting are of seeing the effort being made to save them.

Maybe we are simply the result of the creators sneeze.

Maybe there is no creator.

I don't see an easy answer to the issue you have raised, but I certainly don't see it as evidence of non-existence. However that is the nature of the semantics between the two words.

I think I may know (but not understand fully) things that have contributed to your current view of things. Again, you have my respect.

Whatever word you use to describe your view, I have gotten the answer I requested. Thank you.

No. If prayers answered means "there is a god," then logically prayers unanswered mean "there is no god."

Well then, I said your name about 5 minutes ago, and I heard no answer from you.

By your logic, that means you don't exist.

If a person in the room with you calls your name, and you decide to ignore them, that must mean you don't exist.

That is a really dumb argument from you. I truly believe you can do better than that.

If there is a god that created everything, who says that he has any more control over what happens to his creation that any artist?

Then why worship 'him'? Why not just get his autograph and move on?

Moo-
re: Prayer, if answered, proves existence at least to the person the received the response.

Prayer, if not answered, proves only that if there IS a being it chose not to answer for some reason.

#64 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-07 12:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your argument is ridiculous; I think that's what Joe made clear for all but you to see.

Boyd,

I already said, that we can surmise that a higher dimensional being is likely to exist. And that by nature such a being would have certain properties by virtue of being 4th dimensional or greater.

I also stated that this doesn't mean that such a being would react in a fashion that any of our religions say their god (or gods) would.

Your "prayer test" adds an unecessary requirement to existence: conformity to YOUR ideal of what such a being would do.

In other words your test relies on the assumption that such a being WOULD answer a prayer.

That isn't necessarily the case. Many people believe that such a being can, does, and has answered their prayers, but that is a personal thing. Consider it like whispering to a friend. They may hear you but nobody else will. Just because the guy across the room didn't hear you doesn't mean you didn't speak.

This however steps beyond the limits of the science being able to deduce that such a being is likely and moves into the realm of faith and religion (which supposes what such a being is and how it reacts).

Your argument is ridiculous; I think that's what Joe made clear for all but you to see.

Sure, Boyd. Heh heh

I still haven't heard you answer me, so I must be typing a response to myself since you obviously don't exist. Great logic there, Einstein.

Incidentally, it is this very concept that makes me scoff at people that actively deny there is a "God"...

To take it even further, a higher dimensional being would by very definition exist in all time at once as function of being 4th dimensional or higher. Being as that is the case, they could also effectively be everywhere at once since 3 dimensional placement is a function of our place in time.

That sounds an awful lot like the common concept of "God".

Mind you, that is totally separate from religion. The theoretical 4+ dimensional being (or beings) would be indistinguishable from the criteria for a god, but that doesn't mean that any of the religion's concept of god is necessarily correct.

Which religion if any has it correct is the part that is based on faith.

#55 | Posted by moomanfl

This sounds just like Spinoza's conception of "god" to me:

Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "that which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is only understood in part...

The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality.

Did your welfare check come last week?

#7 | Posted by chickenrancher "

Sounds like you forgot to tip your mailman at Christmas

I do not tip the freaking mailman. He is a gov't worker; he gets a gratuity from me every two weeks.

Timbci is a cheap bastard. Colts neck my ass. More like Camden

I still haven't heard you answer me, so I must be typing a response to myself since you obviously don't exist. Great logic there, Einstein.

#73 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-07 01:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Gee. You got me there. Good night.

This sounds just like Spinoza's conception of "god" to me:

Very similar. I am not presupposing the nature of such a being, however, beyond the natural abilities that a 4th dimensional being would necessarily have by virtue of being 4th dimensional.

For the sake of postulating existance of such a being, I remove aspects of faith and religion that in essence speculate on how it would act or respond as a matter of its own will.

I just postulate that such a higher order being is likely to exist, and these are the physical properties or abilities that it would have as we would perceive them.

Interesting discussion

I personally disbelieve in conceptions of god as commonly modeled by our world's many religions...

Again, intentionally divorced my argument from the religious aspects. Not because I find the onerous for any reason, but rather because they are immaterial to the point I was trying to make.

It is possible to conceptualize such a being without the need to morph it into one of the world's religious icons.

That isn't to say that it might not BE one of the world's religious icons in fact... but that was beyond the scope in which I was discussing it.

In reality, maybe the various religions grew up around some far past interaction with such a being. To explore that for just a second, it is entirely possible that they are all wrong in the specifics, but ultimately right in the general concept.

Again though, without further proof, that part remains a matter of faith. Choose one, or choose none.

Interesting discussion

Thanks, AU. I thought so to. Anything in particular you thought was most interesting?

Again, intentionally divorced my argument from the religious aspects. Not because I find the onerous for any reason, but rather because they are immaterial to the point I was trying to make.

It is possible to conceptualize such a being without the need to morph it into one of the world's religious icons.

#80 | Posted by moomanfl

I know...I added that part in as a qualifier, because the term "god" is so loaded with preconceptions that having the wrong idea in mind when considering Spinoza may lead some people astray.

My personal spirituality is pretty limited, but in the abstract I like the idea of a Spinozan "god", because it is nature and everything.

Not vindictive nor benevolent nor any other kind of human quality we could possibly attribute.

Timbci is a cheap bastard. Colts neck my ass. More like Camden

#76 | Posted by rastaninja

Cheap bastard?. LOL. There is a reason why I live in Colts Neck. It is because I don't waste my money. I never tip more than 20%; I never tip any civil service employees. I only donate to charities that I can use for tax deductions and steers clear of liberalism.

Camden to way too far south of NYC. One of the worst school systems in the country. No matter how much money they keep pouring into Abbott Districts in NJ the schools remain the same. Perhaps they would be better off just closing the schools and giving high school students a choice military, APEx Tech, or Rahway Correctional facility

The funny thing about most "atheists" is the inordinate amount of time they spend attempting to mock and/or ridicule something that supposedly doesn't exist.

Atheism certainly has a very simplistic and rational appeal to people who very much need to have the world around them make sense.

But in case you haven't noticed, you very rarely, if ever, hear any kind of argument advanced for the imposition of "atheism" on the human condition.

Atheism's torch-bearers tend to be the kind of pseudo-intellectual little punks who are more interested in being brave dissenters from the bourgeois norms by simply denigrating religion than in making the case for what atheism is. More than likely, they've read a contemporary polemic or two on the subject and voila!---they've convinced themselves that they are indeed the smug and sneering arbiters of absolute Truth in a world beset by superstitous Talibaptists, and the enlightened, secular heirs to this new, scandalous knowledge that will set the world free if only everyone were as smart as they. (You gotta read this book!)

All the while ignoring 2,000 years of Western thought and writing on the subject of reconciliation of Faith and Reason. (Do they even sell that at Borders?)

The notion of a hyper-rational approach to governing human beings, their behavior, and their societies, is not new. Nor is the idea that human nature is malleable---and can be "perfected" if only the stupid slobs would let go of their superstitions and submit to the carefully-crafted models fabricated by 18th and 19th century Continental European philosophers---who obviously know better than you do.

In reality, governments whose ideologies were premised in this kind of approach to the human condition created the largest bloodbath in human history---in the 20th Century alone.

And that rather glaring, inconvenient truth is why "atheism" has currently been reduced to a simple synonym for "smug little pseudo-intelletual cocksucker; more interested in bashing the concept of religion than in making an actual, compelling case for atheism".

That's my 2 cents.

That's my 2 cents.

#84 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-05-07 01:34 AM | Reply | Flag: Over-priced

Ok, I am bored, so I am going to give some people here a little fodder to sneer at me.

Again, I am going to stick only to the scientific concept, but touch the realm of faith. Think if it like a brainstorm process similar to what an sci-fi or fantasy author does when they figure out the mechanics of the universe they will right about.

Lets take the concepts laid out, and try to apply them to a particular religion and see how that would work. In reality my choice (and I am sure you can guess it) would be able to apply to a several different religions. I will do this is sections based on subject:

MAN WAS CREATED IN HIS IMAGE

Lots of people have speculated that this doesn't mean we literally look like "God". Maybe they are right.

Consider the concept of the soul. The definitions say it is an invisible part of us that we can't physically perceive, that will "live forever". Again the time aspect of it suggests that it is 4th dimensional or higher. If we were created with this higher order as a component, that would explain why we haven't been able to observe and quantify it. It just wouldn't be possible under normal, controlable circumstances.

Yes, yes... how convenient. Again I am simply supposing for the sake of argument or entertainment in order to see how such a thing might work. On to the next section...

HEAVEN

Many religions say there are many levels to heaven. Could this relate to the various dimensions? Each being a higher order of existence.

Further more, more than one religion talks of beings created by, but subservient to the creator but with aspects that by supposed framework of dimensions would place them on a higher order of existence than us. Call them angels, demons, or even spirits. Supposing this is true, then it gives one other peice to the puzzle of such a creator: He would have to be of even a higher order than them... so such a creator would have to be higher than 4th dimensional.

Continued in another post... (coming up, the most well known religious icon and how such a person might be possible under this concept)

Again, this isn't saying this is the way it is... consider it entertainment and an exercise in creative thought.

Using dimensions and other human theories to explain something that is divine is just silly. I guess if humans were all knowing that would be relevant but using limited knowledge to explain something that is unexplainable is just a flawed theory

#55 | Posted by moomanfl

Probably the most interesting post I've read here on the DR.

Are you basing these ideas off of any particular writing(s)?

"#84 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-05-07 01:34 AM | Reply | Flag: Over-priced"

LOL I thought the exact same thing.

Funny thing is is most Christians I've met can't really make a good case for belief either. Not without a healthy portion of hand waving and "mystery."

Ok... I warned you this was coming....

JESUS

Most Christians believe he was both God and man. According to those people, he had all the power of God, but in a man's body with all it's weaknesses.

How would this be accomplished by such a higher order being?

Well, we have already touched on the concept so it shouldn't be hard to follow.

As an experiment, walk across your floor. You are moving in both Time and Space. In space you are changing your physical location, but that is only possible because you are also moving through time.

Consider again that idea of a 3 dimensional sphere moving through a 2 dimensional plane and how that would look to the 2 dimensional being that lived there. They could only see part of the object, just as we can only see things as the exist at one moment in time.

Here is the trick though... because we are 3 dimensional we can't stop moving through time (being the 4th dimension) but we CAN stop moving in the 3rd dimension and lower.

Try walking across your floor and you will be moving in 2 dimensions: either forward and back, or side to side which is 2 dimensional movement. Climb a hill and you are moving in three dimensions: forward and up which moves your position on all three planes.

Why shouldn't a 4th dimensional being likewise be able to fix their position in time at will, just like you stop walking. In addition, why couldn't they move through time at the speed of their choosing much as you choose how fast you walk?

In essence, that would put them in our realm of perception. We couldn't see their ENTIRE nature, however, the part we could perceive would seem nothing more than a 3 dimensional being at our point in time.

Hence, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that a being could appear to be nothing more than what we are (3 dimensional beings) while retaining the full capabilities of a higher order.

I won't speculate on other miracles although a few (like walking on water) should be obvious how they might work given what has been discussed.

Again, I don't mean this as a statement that it happened this way and Jesus really was such a thing, or that angels exist, or the soul for that matter... I simply speculated on how, given the nature of the various dimensions, how it might be possible.

What religion, if any at all, is up to you. If you follow a different one by all means speak up and speculate on how that would fit in with the concept of higher dimensions. As I said I am in the mood for entertainment (in a non-derisive sense).

I just find the subject interesting.

Using dimensions and other human theories to explain something that is divine is just silly.

Only if you take yourself too seriously and have no imagination.

As I said, this was an exercise in imagination combined with a thought experiment. Similar to the process that sci-fi writers use to explain how their things like warp drive work.

Warp drives don't exist yet... but it is perfectly legitimate to speculate about how they MIGHT work.

I do nothing different here.

"Using dimensions and other human theories to explain something that is divine is just silly. I guess if humans were all knowing that would be relevant but using limited knowledge to explain something that is unexplainable is just a flawed theory"

Just admit it. It made your brain hurt and you still can't figure it out.

People who dare to explain the "unexplainable" are aware that they'll probably be incorrect. However, it is the continual pursuit of honing that explanation that we call science.

Are you basing these ideas off of any particular writing(s)?

Jak... no. I was discussing the concept of dimensions earlier and explaining them in context of the article.

Me being ADHD, my brain tends to race and get side tracked. I started making thought experiments. This was the result.

I won't claim my thoughts are original (very few these days are), but they WERE arrived at independently and on-the-fly during the course of this thread.

So while they may not be original to the world at large, they are original to me.

Funny thing is is most Christians I've met can't really make a good case for belief either.

Funny thing is, most Atheists I've met can't really make a good case for secularism.

Which was kinda the point.

And then you followed it with some implicit assertion that adherence to religious belief is incompatible with the pursuit of truth in the physical world.

In short, you're the punchline.

Congratulations.

Are you basing these ideas off of any particular writing(s)?

That wasn't me asking.

That was the erudite "JPW" trying to accomplish too many tasks in one post.

My mistake, Jak. Blame it on the aforementioned ADHD.

My last post is retroactively addressed to JPW.

Consider the concept of the soul. The definitions say it is an invisible part of us that we can't physically perceive, that will "live forever".

MOOMAN

MacDougall's experiments in weighing people seconds before and seconds after death on a flatbed scale seemed to show that something besides air left the body following death - 21 grams.

I come down on the side we're spiritual beings going through the human experience. Betty J Eadie's book, "Embraced By The Light" is a short interesting chronicle of her death experience. She was dead for quite awhile before resuscitation. Other books chronicling small children's near death experiences describe the death and afterlife experience in a way that they couldn't have conjured up themselves.

People who dare to explain the "unexplainable" are aware that they'll probably be incorrect.

Unfortunately Al Gore would disagreee with you. Don't you knoe the debate over global warming is over

"Funny thing is, most Atheists I've met can't really make a good case for secularism.

Which was kinda the point."

I know that was the point, dipshit. If both sides are equally bad at providing a decent case beyond personal opinion, what makes you feel yours is superior other than your own ego?

"And then you followed it with some implicit assertion that adherence to religious belief is incompatible with the pursuit of truth in the physical world."

Not at all. I was addressing TIMBCI's point that because something seems unexplainable doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to explain it with what knowledge we have. Scientists do it every day independent of religion.

"In short, you're the punchline.

Congratulations."

You're an idiot. Congratulations.

"That was the erudite "JPW" trying to accomplish too many tasks in one post."

Shame on me for being able to handle more than one thought in my head at the same time.

"Unfortunately Al Gore would disagreee with you. Don't you knoe the debate over global warming is over"

Al Gore is a self-aggrandizing moron like every other celebrity douche bag who somehow thinks they're qualified to discuss a topic well beyond their pay grade.

If both sides are equally bad at providing a decent case beyond personal opinion, what makes you feel yours is superior other than your own ego?

Nothing does.

Again, which was kinda the point.

Congratulations.

You continue to be the punchline.

Dipshit.

There you go, Jak. Broke those two posts up for you. Let me know if anything is still confusing.

Al Gore is a self-aggrandizing moron like every other celebrity douche bag who somehow thinks they're qualified to discuss a topic well beyond their pay grade.

Noam Chomsky comes to mind....

Not at all. I was addressing TIMBCI's point that because something seems unexplainable doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to explain it with what knowledge we have. Scientists do it every day independent of religion.

Too bad I never said that.

Using dimensions and other human theories to explain something that is divine is just silly. I guess if humans were all knowing that would be relevant but using limited knowledge to explain something that is unexplainable is just a flawed theory"

Perhaps you should improve basic reading comprehension and logic skills before you try to comment of scientific theories

Broke those two posts up for you.

I put them back together for you.

Let me know if anything is still confusing.

You'll be the first to know.

Shame on me for being able to handle more than one thought in my head at the same time.

The key is your ability to express them coherently, though.

"Nothing does.

Again, which was kinda the point."

That's funny. Your point seemed to be nothing more than a rant about atheism filled with old ideas.

Also to JPW in response to his "hand waving" Christians:

It doesn't take religion, as I have mentioned before, to suppose that there is likely to be a higher order of being. Any more that it is unreasonable to suppose there may be more life in our 3 dimensional universe.

As many a better mind than mine has stated: such a suppostion of uniqueness would be nothing more than supreme arrogance.

So, if we can agree that given a number of other dimensions beyond the third (11 is the most bandied about number, but it is postulated that this may simply be the limit of our ability to imagine, not the limit of reality), it is likely that other beings exist, we can likewise deduce some of the properties they must have.

Having come to that point, where a higher being (not necessarily the proverbial SUPREME being) is likely to exist, that leaves the question of the personality and motivations of such a being.

Unfortunately this is not a question Math or Science can shed some illumination on. That aspect of such a being is a matter of speculation, or for some, faith. It is a personal decision to follow a particular faith. That decision is made for personal reasons, based on personal experiences and understandings. Much the same as the decision to follow a particular political philosophy is.

Now, I may not agree with a persons political philosophy. However I certainly don't denigrate them for choosing to follow one.

So why should anyone be denigrated for following a particular faith just because you don't agree with the particulars?

Take issue with the specifics of their belief if you want, but argue on their merits and not simply out of some sense of superiority because you have chosen a different one or none at all.

I don't look down at Muslims for believing different than me. I do take issue with aspects of how they implement their faith. I certainly don't look down on even an atheist or agnostic for not having a faith at all, even though I don't agree. I do however take issue with how some of them choose to react in their capacity as atheists or agnostics to others.

because something seems unexplainable doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to explain it with what knowledge we have.

I don't think anyone is saying that, though.

You're not just pulling random concepts and points of contention from your ass, are you?

Your point seemed to be nothing more than a rant about atheism filled with old ideas.

And what "old ideas" would those be?

MacDougall's experiments in weighing people seconds before and seconds after death on a flatbed scale seemed to show that something besides air left the body following death - 21 grams.

It was proven that there were problems with his methodology. Subsequent attempts to reproduce his results failed.

MacDougall's experiments in weighing people seconds before and seconds after death on a flatbed scale seemed to show that something besides air left the body following death - 21 grams.

Santorum?

"So why should anyone be denigrated for following a particular faith just because you don't agree with the particulars?"

They shouldn't be. I don't fault people for having personal faith and believing for their own reasons. I do, however, have a problem with people taking that personal belief and faith and attempting to implement that beyond their own life and expect people to conform to the world view that results from that belief.

They shouldn't be. I don't fault people for having personal faith and believing for their own reasons. I do, however, have a problem with people taking that personal belief and faith and attempting to implement that beyond their own life and expect people to conform to the world view that results from that belief.

#113 | Posted by jpw at 2009-05-07 02:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

What? People shouldn't have expectations?

They shouldn't be. I don't fault people for having personal faith and believing for their own reasons. I do, however, have a problem with people taking that personal belief and faith and attempting to implement that beyond their own life and expect people to conform to the world view that results from that belief.

I agree that they should EXPECT people to conform to pure religious views.

Witnessing, as the Christians call it, I don't feel falls into that realm however. They do have a religious obligation to tell others about their views, and explain why they feel they are necessary.

Where I feel the line is crossed is when they won't accept a rejection and feel the need to push beyond the bounds of propriety. I saw this as a Christian myself.

"Using dimensions and other human theories to explain something that is divine is just silly. I guess if humans were all knowing that would be relevant but using limited knowledge to explain something that is unexplainable is just a flawed theory"

Unless your point is different that what your words are saying, you seem to be stating that since our knowledge of God is incomplete, we shouldn't be using what knowledge we have to attempt to cobble together explanations as they will be flawed.

To which I say again-of course the ideas will be flawed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't express them.

Bah... I *SAY* this as a Christian myself.

"What? People shouldn't have expectations?"

There's a difference between expectations and proposition 8.

There's a difference between expectations and trying to introduce newly packaged creationism into science classes.

There's a difference between expectations and sodomy laws.

Get the point?

There's a difference between expectations and dictating how others live based on your own world view.

"Using dimensions and other human theories to explain something that is divine is just silly. I guess if humans were all knowing that would be relevant but using limited knowledge to explain something that is unexplainable is just a flawed theory"

The problem with this is that we don't know the limits of our knowledge until we test them. We can only test them by making suppositions based on what knowledge we feel we have at the present.

Regardless, you are still missing the whole point of my earlier posts on the subject...

It was meant to be thought provoking, speculative, and above all... entertaining.

If you don't think I was right... bully for you. I might not be.

Personally I don't think Star Wars reflected reality either, but I don't fault George Lucas for coming up with the idea.

Well... maybe I do for Jar-Jar Binks. He pretty much sucked elephant ass.

JPW - tell that to the actual voters in California. It takes a whole lot more than religious fundies to get that sort of vote result.

"Where I feel the line is crossed is when they won't accept a rejection and feel the need to push beyond the bounds of propriety. I saw this as a Christian myself."

Agreed.

I also see it in many Christian's insistence that their interpretation is correct. Hell we have at least one poster here (more I think...) who will fault others' religious beliefs because they're not the same as theirs.

They marvel at the infinite variance that God created in the universe and yet they either don't see it in human opinion and behavior or they just wish to override it.

"JPW - tell that to the actual voters in California. It takes a whole lot more than religious fundies to get that sort of vote result."

I didn't intend to start a gay marriage debate. It was just an easy example that jumped to mind.

However, it is still an imposition of one's life style choice onto others based on their personal beliefs. It wouldn't matter if it passed by a vote of 90%-10%, those 10% should still have the choice of how to live their life free from others' opinions. Given that the vote was 52-48%, it only makes its passage more of a travesty and infringement on others' beliefs and lives.

MacDougall's experiments in weighing people seconds before and seconds after death on a flatbed scale seemed to show that something besides air left the body following death - 21 grams.

Santorum?

Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-05-07 02:41 AM

Early 20th Century experiment

There's a difference between expectations and proposition 8.

This is where you and I part company. As I understand it, the argument there is over the word "marriage" and not the rights normally associated with that word.

The rights themselves are available through other means, so in reality nobody is actually be shorted a right.

Instead the argument is over a label only which carries no weight beyond the traditional which doesn't actually effect what they are able to do or not do.

Being as the only power to the label is traditional, it is NOT unreasonable to expect that it be KEPT traditional.

Personally, if someone told me I could worship in any manner I chose, but I just couldn't call myself a Christian.... it wouldn't make a difference to me. I would still be worshiping the same God in the same manner, nothing would change but the name.

A rose by any other name and all that jazz.

What I find frustrating is Prop 8 opponents try to mislabel the dispute as one revolving around rights. It isn't about rights. It is about tradition... one they are trying to change, which kind of diminishes the tradition by definition since it would no longer be traditional after the change.

BTW... I would never argue with someone that had a Civil Union if they referred to their partner as their "spouse", "husband", or "wife" as those meanings still haven't changed... they refer to legal status as one bound by law, and it refers to the gender of the one carrying the label under those terms.

I also see it in many Christian's insistence that their interpretation is correct.

Bah... that has never bother me. I will argue the viewpoints as a matter of friendly debate (that occasionally gets heated) much the same as archeologist will argue the meanings of a historical find.

I grew up with those differences, Methodists, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran (Catholic Lite: all the ceremony; half the guilt), Catholic.... they all have their own interpretations and emphasis. At the end of the day they are all Christians, even if we disagree on some of the particulars.

"This is where you and I part company. As I understand it, the argument there is over the word "marriage" and not the rights normally associated with that word.

The rights themselves are available through other means, so in reality nobody is actually be shorted a right."

My understanding is different. I was under the impression that made same sex marriage illegal (and therefore same sex couples couldn't obtain the same legal rights as hetero couples). If civil unions are still legal and allow for spousal rights for same sex couples, then I misunderstood what prop 8 was all about.

If it really is nothing more than a fight over the label of the union, then I think we agree. The gay rights crowd oversteps the bounds by expecting the church to condone their lifestyle choice and marry them.

If civil unions are still legal and allow for spousal rights for same sex couples, then I misunderstood what prop 8 was all about.

I believe that most, but not all, states now offer Civil Unions which carry the same weight of right as marriage, but without that exact title.

I personally am for Civil Unions in every state. As a matter of fact I was for that LONG before this became the more recent hot-button issue. I see no reason why one person should denied the right to have someone inherit as they choose. I also see no reason for someone to be denied the right to put anyone on their insurance that they choose, as long as they are willing to pay any cost involved with doing so. The same with designating someone else to make medical decisions for you when you lack the capacity.

To me, the restrictions of those rights for anyone under any circumstances is just plain stupid.

"I grew up with those differences, Methodists, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran (Catholic Lite: all the ceremony; half the guilt), Catholic.... they all have their own interpretations and emphasis. At the end of the day they are all Christians, even if we disagree on some of the particulars."

Which is why it's always baffled me that the debates can get so heated or outright insulting. Many times it seems people forget they have much more in common than different.

There's a difference between expectations and trying to introduce newly packaged creationism into science classes...

There's a difference between expectations and dictating how others live based on your own world view.

You probably won't agree with me, but I think this is a contradictory set of statements.

If the government is going to dictate that the children MUST be taught by the schools, with no choice given to the parents (however stupid that decision might be), I don't see why they should likewise be told that there can be no mention, and indeed an inherent derision of their beliefs taught by means of that force to their kids.

I also don't agree totally with your depiction of ID as "repackaged creationism". ID was a compromise by one group which was answered by absolute refusal to compromise by the other, again with that force issue in play.

As I have pointed out throughout this thread, there is enough science to postulate the existence of a higher being. ID doesn't identify such a being, so it isn't dependent on a particular religion, or even any real religion at all as I have pointed out above in my ramblings.

For that matter, ID doesn't even preclude the idea of evolution so it really wasn't replacing anything.

As I understood the idea proposed to the schools, ID was simply to be mentioned as one POSSIBLE idea that fits in the areas that science doesn't have a definite answer for either.

I would say that this is an EXTREME compromise by a group that has been forced to have their children educated in an environment that is only sometimes just short of openly hostile to their religious beliefs.

Not everyone can homeschool for various reasons, be it local law, or economics. So under those conditions, they have no choice but to have their religion undermined by force of law.

BTW... much ado is made of the Fundamentalist that believe in a literal Bible interpretation of creation. However MOST Christians tend more to the ID side of things... that is to say, evolution happened, but God had his hand in shaping HOW it turned out. I don't see a compromise of at least mentioning this as an unreasonable thing to ask as long as you aren't pushing it as fact, or singling it to a specific religion. Under that case it becomes no different than the statements of speculation of possibilities that are often given in a classroom when the full answer to a question isn't known.

MOOMANFL

I've really, really enjoyed following your comments on this thread. Respect City for the depth of your prepositions and the way you've conducted the discussion without rancor.

I grew up in pulpit pounding fundamental Christianity - you know, 2 hour altar calls on Sunday nights, prayer meetings, "Catholics are all going to Hell and so might you (even people who'd been there every time the doors were open for decades LOL)", etc. Since then I've been a member of a variety of denominations - Methodist, United Church of Christ, Church of Christ, Baptist, nondenominational, etc.

The foundations of my Christian belief system is the 'red print', i.e. Jesus's words. Everything else has been used to various degrees to interpret that simple philosophy to suit their own purposes, and, has history has proven, many times for things 100% antithetical to the very principles laid out by Christ Himself - love, tolerance, acceptance, kindness, charity, etc...

Am I a perfect Christian in practice all the time - loving, tolerant, forgiving, etc? No. But, at least I have a moral compass to point me back in the right direction. This online blogging stuff (which I'm relatively new at) opens all kinds of doors to engaging in occasional verbal bouts that are paradoxical to Christian principles. I really only get pissed off at people who make a point of being an asshole. You know what they say about discussing religion and politics in any case.

Anyway, I've really enjoyed getting a spectators view of your insights on this topic. Nicely done.

"JPW - tell that to the actual voters in California. It takes a whole lot more than religious fundies to get that sort of vote result."

I didn't intend to start a gay marriage debate. It was just an easy example that jumped to mind.

However, it is still an imposition of one's life style choice onto others based on their personal beliefs. It wouldn't matter if it passed by a vote of 90%-10%, those 10% should still have the choice of how to live their life free from others' opinions. Given that the vote was 52-48%, it only makes its passage more of a travesty and infringement on others' beliefs and lives.

#122 | Posted by jpw at 2009-05-07 02:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Infringement?! I disagree. This falls squarely into that category of: "If you don't absolutely love us and agree with us then you fear and hate us." Rubbish. Marriage is for a man and a woman. You can't invite yourself to EVERY party and expect to magically become a real participant. It would be like black people demanding to be white because of the equal rights precedent.

Also: your concern would carry a lot more weight if 1) civil unions weren't already agreed upon and favored by a majority of the citizens, and 2) by your own admission, the vote was that close.

People are way too impatient and touchy about this.

Respect City for the depth of your prepositions and the way you've conducted the discussion without rancor.

Thanks AU.

I know you have seen me in the past level some rancor. My only excuse in those occasion is that at the time I have either been attacked, felt attacked, or have past history with a particular poster of being attacked.

This thread represents my default mode, and is generally how I prefer to debate.

I grew up in pulpit pounding fundamental Christianity - you know, 2 hour altar calls on Sunday nights, prayer meetings

My dad grew up in the Assembly of God church, and later his parents started a Pentacostal church which my grandmother and uncle still run down the street from their house. Church every night for several hours, and the two hour altar calls you speak of.

I know the situation. I love my grandmother to death, and it pains me that I can only take her in small doses. However, the house I grew up in was Presbyterian. By far the most sedate of all the denominations. I guess this tempered my experience with the religion.

Jesus's words. Everything else has been used to various degrees to interpret that simple philosophy to suit their own purposes,

Personally I believe there is much wisdom beyond the "red words", however I have seen many a person go about the wrong way of finding the wisdom.

I will offer my favorite parody example that unfortunately you will recognize as having a large grain of truth in church that you grew up in:

A man decides he is going to randomly pick two Bible verses each day and do his best to follow them. He figures that by this method he will start improving his relationship with God.

The man pulls out two Bibles, offers a deep and fervent prayer to the Lord for guidance then, with eyes still tightly closed and head bowed, he starts rapidly flipping the pages. After a few seconds he stops fanning through the pages and stabs his fingers down onto the books.

With great expectation of Gods revelation to him about how he might best serve he looks at the verses that his fingers landed on and reads the following:

Matthew 27:5 "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."

Luke 10:37 "Then Jesus said, 'Yes, now go and do the same.'"

The point being too many people fail to use proper context. While you make take the meaning of a passage one way when read by itself, if you take it in context with the many other passages throught the book that relate, often the message is very different. It is also amazing consistent if this rule is followed.

I hope you found the story humorous. I wrote it myself.

#130 - AU, Nice post. I have had similar confusing experiences to the point that I also use the "Red-Letter" Rule. Keep on truckin AU.

Thanks AU.

You're welcome, and thank you for your posts. It's always good to think about these things.

I know you have seen me in the past level some rancor. My only excuse in those occasion is that at the time I have either been attacked, felt attacked, or have past history with a particular poster of being attacked.

Who hasn't? I don't ever have a problem with anyone here unless they're the kind you've described. You know who my trolls are LOL

I will offer my favorite parody example

Very good!

I was also once a member of a Presbyterian Church in Long Beach, CA. I prefer denominations who are more focused on love and tolerance than hellfire and brimstone. I have cousins who are "Extreme Christians" and will offer justifications for almost anything that are 100% paradoxical to what Christ taught. Example: Being judgmental. They lump everyone unlike them in one pot. I pointed out what Jesus said about being judgemental: "Judge not that ye be not judged" (that's the domain of God to do). Instant retort was from Leviticus or something.

Anyway, I got burned out on fundamentalist Christianity, although I'm really glad I had all the hours and hours of "God time" growing up. It made me a better person. Gave me a moral compass, taught me compassion, right from wrong, etc.

God must weep at what we do in His name sometimes though.

Again, enjoyed focusing on a topic that included God and some depth of thought.

I'm gonna hit the rack. For every night of my life I've thanked God for the gift of living another day and asked Him to help me do better tomorrow. When I let Him things always seem to be just as they're supposed to be ... whatever the circumstances. Being human can be a bitch at times. It's all about which voice I'm listening to - mine or His.

Have yourself a great day.

#132 - MOOMAN - that is funny! Thanks for the yuks and for the overall sensible approach.

MRFAIR

Ya. What is "Christianity" if Christian denominations aren't using the teachings of Christ most of the time? I heard far more from the Old Testament and the Apostle Paul than I ever did from Jesus' own words in fundamental Christianity. Many completely at odds with CHRISTian principles.

I'll keep on truckin'. Always. Well, I have to give my dog his pain pill and hit the rack. He had an operation today to remove some tumors. What a trooper he is though. If only mankind had a golden retriever's attitude! He's "All love, all the time". LOL

You have a great day too, man.

Am I a perfect Christian in practice all the time - loving, tolerant, forgiving, etc? No.

Indeed. I have long said to people, including those here that consistently accuse all Christians of being scantimonious and holier-than-thou, that in our view we are ALL sinners. Christians are no better in that respect, and most of them will admit this freely. Indeed the only thing that we have that non-Christians don't is GOD's forgiveness, which is by His grace alone as a gift, and not because we deserve it by our actions. Christians don't believe that we are even capable of meeting those standards on our own. That we sin is inevitable by our very nature as humans. The same is true of everyone.

That doesn't excuse the sin, and that forgiveness isn't license to sin more. The Bible says we can negate that forgiveness by willing repetition of sin.

If the man in my above story had instead picked the following two verses, he would have picked the most valuable two verses in the Bible for a Christian to remember, and I hope than any non-Christians reading this pay attention and remember I said this:

Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

1 Timothy 1:15 "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinnersof whom I am the worst."

I added the bolded emphasis to show where the Christian should be focusing his attention.

PS

It's a shame the 11th Commandment - which Jesus said was the greatest and the reason for His coming - was never added to the other 10:

"Love the Lord God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself".

OK. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz time. Have a good one.

Have a restful sleep, friend.

"...2) by your own admission, the vote was that close."

People are way too impatient and touchy about this.

#131 | Posted by MrFair at 2009-05-07 03:56 AM | Reply | Flag TIRED

should have read:
2) if the vote hadn't been that close as you describe.

AAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW the progressive way. Calling people names they do not agree with.

Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-05-04 10:08 PM

Did your welfare check come last week?

#7 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-05-06 07:23 PM |

But we don't have the technology--or the means to do it.

We don't have the ability to survive the time that would elapse from Point A to Point B.

We don't have anything for warp speed.

#47 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-06 11:30 PM |

That's the American Spirit!

That's the American Spirit!

What? Facing reality? Obeying laws of physics?

Besides, I thought the left generally wants tax $$$ to stay on earth and feed the poor.

We don't have the ability to survive the time that would elapse from Point A to Point B.

Not quite true, murph. If one goes fast enough (~0.99999999999 C) the galaxy, though 100,000 miles in diameter, can be crossed in 50 years relative to the traveler. More than 100,000 years will have passed on earth, however. Faster, and even sooner of course The problem is getting up to that speed.

Yikes!

100,000 miles should be 100,000 light years, of course.

exact speed to cross the galaxy in 50 years relative to traveler = 0.9999998749999922 C. To cross it in 10 years one would have to obtain a speed of 0.9999999949999999 C

"The problem is getting up to that speed."

Not to mention putting on the brakes at the other end...

Not to mention putting on the brakes at the other end...

No, not really. YOu simply turn around halfway to the destination and decellerate at the same rate you accellerated -- 1G e.g. You will be at rest relative to the destination once you get there.

That isn't figured into the calculation, of course. But there are relativity calculators out there that figure both accelleration and decelleration into the equation.

"Also: your concern would carry a lot more weight if 1) civil unions weren't already agreed upon and favored by a majority of the citizens,"

I wouldn't quite call it concern, but I addressed this point in another post (#126).

"and 2) if the vote hadn't been that close as you describe."

It doesn't really matter how big the majority is if they're using that status to dictate people's lives.

"If a person in the room with you calls your name, and you decide to ignore them, that must mean you don't exist.

That is a really dumb argument from you."

You're right that it's dumb, but it wasn't from me. You actually made that up yourself.

Such an argument would be stupid because you have other evidence of the other person being in the room with you - mainly, the fact that you can see them. You cannot see God and have no proof that he is in the room with you when you call out his name.

If your prayers being answered is not just a coincidence and actually acts as "proof" that God exists (per your argument), then your prayers not being answered is also not just a coincidence and acts as proof that God does not exist. It's the only logical conclusion to your own stupid argument.

#84 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-05-07 01:34 AM | Reply | Flag: Really ought to drink more

Not to mention putting on the brakes at the other end...

And doing this without splattering yourself on the chair from the acceleration. I always wondered how in Sci-Fi shit when a starship accelerates, nobody feels anything, or it's just a G or two despite the fact that they go from 0 to c in 4 seconds. At that kind of acceleration, your comfy chair would bash you to bits. But it's sci-fi, so you suspend disbelief, smoke a bowl, and enjoy it.

"I would think it would be virtually impossible to build something that could go faster than the speed of time."

The idea is to both go faster than the speed of light, yet not do so. That is, as an example, it takes light app. 4 years to get from here to the nearest star. The concept is to get to that star in less than 4 years, say a week. If one did this, that person would, technically, be going faster than the speed of light. But to do this, the person would be going through some manipulation of space/time and thus not _travelling_ faster than the speed of light. That is what the concept of "warp drive" and other similar propasals present.

I very much doubt we'll be able to do this in the next couple of centuries. However, I am encouraged by the great strides we keep making in understanding the universe. I think that the universe has quirks which allow bypassing the normal laws of physics. Ofttimes when I read about quantum physics I get the impression that it almost demands such quirks. So I have great hopes for the human race in this regard. And am very sorry that I won't be around to partake in this travel.

. The concept is to get to that star in less than 4 years,

You can --- relative to the traveler.

As I pointed out upthread, if you can accelerate to 0.9999999 C, you can cross the galaxy(100,000 light years) in 50 years as the clock on your ship measures time. Back on earth, 100,000 years would have elapsed, however.

50 year trip, even relative to the traveller... might require a generation ship then, neh? Folks would still age.

Of course, not a bad idea. Fire it up, load up a few thousand, send them off to that distant place, then bring the following generations back, and by then, the remaining humans here will have finally died out and the race can start over again? I like this idea.

As far as I understand the Alcubierre drive, I don't think time dilation would be a problem with it. The ship occupies a flat region of spacetime and is not moving relativistically.

If you're talking about traveling at a good portion of the speed of light, though, yeah - you'll come back and humans will have nuked eachother and the reptilians and crab people would be fighting a war for control of earth.

"You can --- relative to the traveler."

Obviously. But that isn't the issue, which is to have travel which allows for real-time commerce.

50 year trip, even relative to the traveller... might require a generation ship then, neh? Folks would still age.

Yes, but you don't have to cross the galaxy. There are several billion stars between us and the other side of the galaxy.

But there are other practical problems other than getting up to that speed. At that speed, the ubiquitous radio waves and light will be blue shifted into deadly x-rays and gamma rays. Also even the few atoms of hydrogen per meter^2 will make something that fast be like a submarine moving through a pool of mercury. The friction alone would probably tear up the ship. You'll have to deflect the 'dust' coming at you.

Of course a bussard ramjet funnels it and fuses it for power. But there is still the blue shifted stuff to deal with.

Obviously. But that isn't the issue, which is to have travel which allows for real-time commerce.

But a fully colonized galaxy that is at its technological acme could still trade.

Think how cool it would be to put a space trucker. You could put a penny in the bank, make your run, and when you got back home you'd have enough money to buy Miami.

What an interesting dissertation that would make: Economics in a Relativistic Model. I wonder if it's been done?

But there are other practical problems other than getting up to that speed. At that speed, the ubiquitous radio waves and light will be blue shifted into deadly x-rays and gamma rays.

That's why you need shields like star trek. Or a way of harvesting their energy.

Also even the few atoms of hydrogen per meter^2 will make something that fast be like a submarine moving through a pool of mercury. The friction alone would probably tear up the ship. You'll have to deflect the 'dust' coming at you.

I remember star trek has "deflectors" to do this.

Of course a bussard ramjet funnels it and fuses it for power. But there is still the blue shifted stuff to deal with.

One can only hope it looks very trippy. Psychedelic visuals during relativistic or ultra-relativistic travel are a staple of sci-fi.

"But a fully colonized galaxy that is at its technological acme could still trade."

If that galaxy has only sub-light speed travel, too many problems are encountered to make that trade viable. Wwhatever a particular planet needs has to be communicated and acted upon before that planet either outgrows that need, finds another source, its civilization collapses, or its customs change sufficiently to inhibit trade. The medium of exchange becomes a huge issue. Gold, for instance, would sound like a good medium of exchange to us. To a planet which has an overabundance of gold it has as much meaning as sand does to us. Keep in mind that everything, all of these needs and fulfillment of those needs is happening in real years on the planets.

I've read several speculative essays on this topic and come away with the impression that sub-light trade would be way too complicated and inefficient to be anything other than tourist-type effort.

"Think how cool it would be to put a space trucker. You could put a penny in the bank, make your run, and when you got back home you'd have enough money to buy Miami."

haha

i'm in !!!

" 'Not to mention putting on the brakes at the other end...'

No, not really. YOu simply turn around halfway to the destination and decellerate at the same rate you accellerated -- 1G e.g. You will be at rest relative to the destination once you get there.

That isn't figured into the calculation, of course. But there are relativity calculators out there that figure both accelleration and decelleration into the equation.
#148 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-07 08:48 AM"

That was precisely the point.

It's NOT that one would be UNABLE to stop (since obviously, if one has the ability to accelerate to "C speed", one has the ability to decelerate back to zero in the manner you described). The point is that a trip will take TWICE as long with only a portion of the trip at "C speed". In addition, the benefits of "C speed" (time dilation, etc.) will only occur over a portion of the trip.

Of course, if one has the ability to RAPIDLY accelerate to "C speed", then that portion becomes the majority of the trip. But then, THAT is the rub.

You run into a problem with your energy source, though. If you carry your fuel with you, it will add to the mass of the ship and be subject to relativistic mass increase along with your vessel. Even if you have a matter-antimatter reactor and all of the energy goes into propulsion, you're not going to be able to bring a sizable starship up to that kind of speed. You need more energy to accelerate the ship at speeds approaching c, so you need to carry more fuel... which means you need to exert more force to move the ship in the first place and you'll burn through your fuel faster.

Somehow you need to travel without having to carry the energy source required to make the whole journey.

#165, Fuel mass:

That's why you use a ramjet and fuse interstellar hydrogen. You need only enought fuel to get you to ramjet speeds. You scoop it with an magnetic funnel, narrowing the aperture of the funnel as speeds increase or to control speed.

"Somehow you need to travel without having to carry the energy source required to make the whole journey.
#165 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-05-07 03:12 PM"

For example: the interstellar ramjet:

Oops...

didn't know you were posting this at the same time, goatman.

didn't know you were posting this at the same time, goatman.

Great minds and all that. Thanks for the link!

The article was a fun read but I think our current state of technology is about as close to doing this as the first trilobites 540 million years ago were to building the space shuttle.

#2 | Posted by axe at 2009-05-06 05:08 PM | Reply |

Maybe not. It would be a huge help to this project if we could figure out just what exactly gives objects "mass" and find out just what gravity really is.

And that is the focus of the LHC when it fires up again in October.

"I very much doubt we'll be able to do this in the next couple of centuries."

Man, I envy the optimism of anyone who actually suggests that the human race has a couple of centuries left. My guess is that we'll be off the face of the map by 2100. herm

There was this show about Star Trek, something about how Wiliam Shatner invented the future or something, where they looked at ST technology-their communicators became our cell phones and like that.

The energy needed to create warp speed for a star ship would be like the energy output of a billion stars, because "warp speed" warps time and space around the ship, not move the ship.

Besides, with warp speed, they'd only lose your luggage faster and further.

Such an argument would be stupid because you have other evidence of the other person being in the room with you -

Not necessarily.

Prayer, by definition is simply talking to someone. That has nothing to do with seeing, so adding that component to the argument for no reason as you have just done is illogical.

We can't see a higher dimensional being like that unless they choose to let us. In essence we are blind to them unless they make their presence known to us.

If a blind person enters a room and asks if anyone is there, and no one answers does that logically mean that no one could possibly be there? If you can think of even one situation in which a blind person could ask, and no one answer even though they are there then the argument given about prayer is an illogical test. An unanswered prayer proves NOTHING about the existence of such a being.

The energy needed to create warp speed for a star ship would be like the energy output of a billion stars, because "warp speed" warps time and space around the ship, not move the ship.

No it doesn't. The effect only has to be local to the ship, not to all of space time.

The concept of the warp drive in the article can be illustrated simply.

Take a large sheet of spandex and stretch it out flat. This represents space time. Now put a marble on it's surface to represent the ship.

Now underneath the fabric use your finger to push up only a small bit of the spandex behind the marble. Even a tiny distortion in the fabric this way is sufficient to move the marble. around ahead of the "wave" distortion you make.

In essence by bunching up the local area of Space/Time behind the ship and stretching out the local Space/Time immediately in front of the ship you create a situation where the stuff in the middle in constantly be moving ahead in a "down-hill" effect.

However since the Space/Time in the middle isn't distorted like the parts in front and behind, the ship's occupants would still be in the same Relative (as in E=MC^2) Space/Time as the relative observer. Meaning the speed of light distortion to Time wouldn't apply.

Traveling a week that way would take a week to the traveler AND to the observer.

Here is a simpler way to think of the concept...

Space/Time is the ocean; the ship is a surfboard. Just like the surfboard is moved by riding the distortion in the oceans surface, the ship simply creates a wave in Space/Time and rides it.

What will really suck is if, 500 years from now someone discovers warp speed is possible, but it will require massive amounts of fossil fuels.

Star Trek warp drive quite bogus actually.

If we assume warp 1 to be the speed of light, then even at warp 10 we aren't going anywhere with those astronomical distances out there.

For future interplanetary travel we would need worm holes, curved space, black holes, increment warp drive by 1000 or other phenomena yet to be imagined.

Crisis

If we assume warp 1 to be the speed of light, then even at warp 10 we aren't going anywhere with those astronomical distances out there.
~Crisis

I believe you're making the assumption that warp 2 is twice the speed of light. It could represent 100 or 1000 times the speed of light it was never defined...

The same with all the warp speeds... they were never really defined as far as I know. The only thing defined was:

Impulse engines = sublight travel

Warp engines = faster than light travel

Oh... and the problem with getting squashed by acceleration and deceleration forces were handled by the inertial dampeners.

"If we assume warp 1 to be the speed of light, then even at warp 10 we aren't going anywhere with those astronomical distances out there.

If we assume warp 1 to be the speed of light, then even at warp 10 we aren't going anywhere with those astronomical distances out there.

I believe you're making the assumption that warp 2 is twice the speed of light. It could represent 100 or 1000 times the speed of light it was never defined..."

Warp factor calculations:

It looks like warp is the cube root of C, then -- right?

It looks like warp is the cube root of C, then -- right?

#182 | Posted by goatman

Depends if you're warping about the galactic 'hood in Old and Busted TOS Enterprise, or New Hotness TNG Enterprise.