# SUN FACT



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Here is something to ponder. The light that results from the explosions at the center of the Sun takes 200,000 years to reach the Sun's surface, and another eight minutes to reach Earth. I believe that the intense gravity of the interior of the Sun is the reason for the super slow speed of light.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

there is no gravity, the earth sucks... 

Greg


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

But in the center of the sun all the gravity is pulling the other way!


----------



## Grantham (Sep 8, 2009)

I'm pleased to see you understand the gravity of the situation...heh heh. 

Mick


----------



## lotsasteam (Jan 3, 2008)

Whauuh! 200 000 years + 8 min -----add another 8 min and you got sun burned!! 

Manfred Diel


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Which brings up the question......







........How does the light







at the very center know which way to go!


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Madman on 17 Sep 2009 09:01 PM 
Which brings up the question......







........How does the light







at the very center know which way to go!










That is an easy question to answer...

Given the pull of gravity and the interaction the sun with other close large bodies with enough gravitational pull, and the speed of light in a vacuum the knowledge of which direction the light absolutely must go is simply.... out! It obviously cannot go any further in, can it?


----------



## Bighurt (Sep 15, 2009)

Pull of Gravity, if gravity was a pulling force than how is the universe expanding. 

The attraction to dense objects with gravity pulling would mean that the universe is destined to be a bunch of grapes, all bunched together in the middle... 

Light is electromagnetic radiation within a given wavelength. The visable light produced by the sun does so from the chrona the radition emitted from the interior if the celestial body is outside what we refer to as light...


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Gravity is a warping of space/time as opposed to magnetism which is an attracting/repelling force.


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

Most people believe the speed of light is constant. It is not. Light will slow down as density of the medium it is passing through increases. 

I think the density of the sun is what is slowing the light down. This density is due to the gravity of the mass there. So make your argument eight way...ha ha ha.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

That's exactly the way I heard it described. The interior of the Sun is so dense that it slows the speed of light to a mere crawl. Something on the order of an inch and a half per year, until it reaches the surface. I'm not sure that the speed is the same from center to surface or if it increases as it nears the surface. I'll have to wait for the Science channel to air the subject, Mysteries of the Sun, again.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Madman,

Umm... I think it has something to do with the immense density of the atomic particles that make up the core of the sun. Perhaps someone has statistically calculated that a given photon might take that long, but it's equally likely that any given photon never makes it. In the aggregate, according to that line of stats, you're right. As someone else has said, they've got nowhere else to go but 'out'. Except they don't do it in straight lines, but more like a cueball shot into a scatter of pool balls, the path is erratic. I'm not too sure a photon at the middle ever makes it out: it collides with a nucleus, kicking it up one quantum energy level, which causes _that_ thing to emit a photon.

No one really knows. It depends on how they set up the algorithm.

For my part--and all I know fer sure, in the summertime, there's too dad-gone many of 'em; in the wintertime, there shorely ain't enough.

Les


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Ironton,

Einstein uses the speed of light as a constant in his relativity equations, namely, 'C'. I think it isn't that light slows down going through heavy mass, but that it, be it in particle or waveform energy, bounces around along an erratic path and comes out the other side. (And it can be in either form simultaneously, if you belive quantum physics.) Now, massive bodies have lots of particles, so it sorta fits--and I ain't even gonna say no mo'.









Les


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 16 Sep 2009 08:29 PM 
there is no gravity, the earth sucks... 

Greg 
I'll go with that!

Les


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Bighurt:

Last book I read, they don't know for sure if the Universe is going to keep expanding. ("The Big Bang" we all grew up with.) They just don't know. Remember, once upon a time the Earth was *known *to be flat. And at the center of the universe. Everything rotated around the Earth. You could get burned at the stake for suggesting else, ask Gallileo. Except he's dead. Drat it. But he wrote a book, it had that in it.

A cyclical universe pleases some, because it takes away the problem of the 'point' that suddenly exploded into what we call this space-time continuum. Where'd the point come from? What was it in before it exploded? Except, where'd the first explosion come from?

Thing is, no one knows.

Unlike me, who positively is sure his adult beverage container is empty. That is inarguable.









Les


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Thinking about the imensity of the universe hurts my head sometimes. All of the theories are certainly interesting, and make for some lively discussion. The big bang theory is very convincing, and makes sense to me. But thinking about what preceeded it gives me a headache. Just the fact that space is endless is difficult to even begin to comprehend. How can a vacuum have no end when there is nothing to begin with in the first place?


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Madman on 19 Sep 2009 08:58 PM 
Thinking about the imensity of the universe hurts my head sometimes. All of the theories are certainly interesting, and make for some lively discussion. The big bang theory is very convincing, and makes sense to me. But thinking about what preceeded it gives me a headache. Just the fact that space is endless is difficult to even begin to comprehend. How can a vacuum have no end when there is nothing to begin with in the first place? 


Remember, the "Big Bang" theory does not mean that there was this big empty space going along in time and some "singularity" went: "ker boom" and all the stars and planets and galaxies and nebulae were suddenly there. Part of the "Big Bang" theory is that even the empty space was not there to begin with... Neither was TIME! There is no "PRE Big Bang" possible because there was no "TIME" prior to that whimpering pop that caused all matter, the empty space around it, and Time to come into existance.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Or to quote my most Darling Daughter, whom I dote upon (as well as her kids!) when she was in highschool they were doing biology studies of fruit flies and a jar of them got knocked off the table and broke. All the kids were upset and worried that they would all get away and cause some sort of environmental disaster. My daugher said that someone should go get the vacuum cleaner to sweep them up. Someone else said that would not help because they could possibly get out of the cannister. She said, "No, they'll all be dead! Everybody knows that nothing can live in a vacuum."


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Les nailed it. The density of matter making up the sun (and other stars) is so great that a photon (particle of light) from the fusion reaction as the sun's center only travels a small distance before being absorbed, whereupon it's re-emitted, but in a different random direction, only to be reabsorbed again, then re-emitted again in another random direction. The resulting meandering course it follows to the surface it why it takes so long to get there. Once in relatively free space, it's free to follow a straight line to the earth, so it gets here in eight minutes. 

To illustrate just how much mass the sun has, it "burns" roughly 400,000,000 tons of hydrogen per second, and it's been burning for five-billion years. It still has enough hydrogen to continue to burn for another five-billion years, and all that mass is compacted by gravity into a ball only 864,900 miles in diameter.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Dan,

There are theories out there that posit a saddle-shaped universe, a pancake-shaped universe, and of course, the 'spherical-shaped' Universe we were all taught. Except they think now, that it isn't necessarily spherical like a balloon, they think it might have lumps and voids. Some cosmologists think the Universe might be cyclical: first the Big Gang, a looonng time later all matter coasts to a stop, and starts to contract. Another bunch says, "No, there's not enough matter to create the gravitational 'brake' to stop everything, because to have matter, you have to have energy. That means there must be Dark Matter and Dark Energy, we just can't detect it."

And the last group, kinda small, thinks, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth..."

No one can prove their position, so all becomes a matter of faith. Pick yours.

Les


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Les on 20 Sep 2009 02:24 PM 
Dan,

There are theories out there that posit a saddle-shaped universe, a pancake-shaped universe, and of course, the 'spherical-shaped' Universe we were all taught. Except they think now, that it isn't necessarily spherical like a balloon, they think it might have lumps and voids. Some cosmologists think the Universe might be cyclical: first the Big Gang, a looonng time later all matter coasts to a stop, and starts to contract. Another bunch says, "No, there's not enough matter to create the gravitational 'brake' to stop everything, because to have matter, you have to have energy. That means there must be Dark Matter and Dark Energy, we just can't detect it."

And the last group, kinda small, thinks, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth..."

No one can prove their position, so all becomes a matter of faith. Pick yours.

Les


If the universe is saddle-shaped then I think we are all a little saddle-sore and if it is pancake-shapped then I think it needs another pat of butter and a bit more maple syrup as it seems to be a bit dry and not as sweet as it should be. 

I tend to think of it more as spherical-shaped since we seem to be assumming that shape all on our own anyway. That stuff about lumps and voids fits the shape and mental capacity of many also. 

Dark matter and dark energy do seem to be increasing what with all the people that are turning to the dark side at the behest of Hollywood and their own ego.

But since, as I understand it, God "spoke worlds into being"... and "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." I suppose that when God spoke that Word, there must have been something that could be described in some way as a sort of a "BIG BANG", so I don't discount that description at all.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

And the last group, kinda small, thinks, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth..."Prior to the "Age of Reason", most thought everything was made of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. This explanation was discarded in favor of the "scientific" one - everything is made of matter which comes in four states - solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Hmmmmm... Earth (solid), Water (liquid), gas (Air), and plasma (Fire)? Seems to me it may just be a matter of the word chosen as the descripter to describe the difference, and they knew about Fire before we recently added plasma as the "fourth state of matter."

Most of the metaphysical/philosophical literature I've read also says everything is made up of "vibrations." We've also discarded that paradigm - yet the best candidate we have for the "theory of everything" is M-Theory, an extension of string theory in which matter is made of particles and particles aren't "solid" at all, but rather made of "strings" - vibrating strands and loops of energy - and the particle "made" depends upon how the string is vibrating. 

Score TWO for the ancients!

We remember Pythagoras of Samos for his theorim describing the relationship of the length of the sides of a right triangle - a² + b² = c². However, Pythagoras was the inventor and founder of a phylosophical/religious system based upon the "meaning" underlying each integer (the underpinnings for what became perverted into Numerology among other things). Pythagoras' system progressed orderly, as did most ancient Greek thought, and in his system, "Four" was the number of "that which manifests." In other words, in order to exist as a solid thing in our reality, Four was required.

Lo and behold, there are four states of matter, four "forces" which run the universe and hold it together (gravity, electromagnitism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force), and four dimensions (that we can see) in our spacetime continuium. C.G. Jung created his psychology around the idea that we each have four psychological functions, which today is widely accepted and is the basis for they Myers-Briggs test used by major corporations. All lifeas we know it is based upon carbon, an atom containing four electrons and four "holes" in its valance band and therefore chemically capable of making four molecular bonds. Further, all life as we know it is based upon DNA, a molecular chain built of four amino acids which make up its "base pairs" to form the "rungs" - that part of the DNA molecule that holds the "code of life."

Score THREE?

Myself, I don't think the ancients were as ignorant as we seem to think. Though their thinking wasn't necessarily according to the "scientific method" we favor today, they often seemed to come up with the right answers regardless.

Today, science, and in particular, particle physics, is edging ever closer to whatever line it is that separates science from mysticism, and imho, to being forced to acknowlege the existance of a Creator, something in which many "scientists" already believe anyway.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

After that....my brain hurts too.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

As does mine Mike. I might have to log off until penetration, into my brain, has taken place. I don't know if I can absorb any train stuff right now. Whew!!!!


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Semper wrote: "I suppose that when God spoke that Word, there must have been something that could be described in some way as a sort of a "BIG BANG", so I don't discount that description at all."

Semper,

Eeeehhhh ... I wasn't going to say another word. Howsumever, the loudly proclaimed 'success' of the *theory* of the Big Bang is used to 'prove' there is no God.

No one can prove it either way. The problem is, if one believes in the 'Big Bang' _as it is presently presented by a secular humanist society_ one runs the risk of syncretism. I don't think that's what you meant, but I wanted to raise a cautionary to tying the two together. The two belief systems are as opposite as they can be.

Les


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

the loudly proclaimed 'success' of the theory of the Big Bang is used to 'prove' there is no God.With all due respect, I don't think that's true at all. The Big Bang is NOT a theory of Creation as it does not describe the moment of the Big Bang, but rather what took place from 10-43 second AFTER the Big Bang and onwards. During the instant of the Big Bang itself the the 10-43 second afterwards, our physics breaks down. Therefore, anyone trying to use the Big Bang Theory to "prove" God didn't create the Universe or that there is no God apparently doesn't understand the theory nor the physics behind it.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Let's see if we can go for complete brain meltdown...

When I was kid I remember being told in gradeschool that there were 3 dimensions (the ones that now are called the definition of "3-space"). Then in later grades I remember being told that "some scientists have decided that Time is also a dimension, but not all scientists agree with that determination". Today, I have not heard of anyone that believes Time is not a dimension.

Now, as I understand it, there are theories that say there are many more dimensions... from a minimum of 7, all the way to 27 (or was that 28?). The problems with these theories are that nobody can "find" the dimensions. It is proposed that they are somehow folded back in upon themselves and are thus invisible to us.

I don't understand why they cannot see several of the other dimensions that I can see. Namely: Gravity, Light, Electricity, and Magnetism. 

I realize that I cannot actually "see" some of those but I certainly experience them and can measure their "dimension". 

Also, most of science lumps the latter three as just one continuous spectrum, but I contend they are similar to the three spacial dimensions. The location of an object is specficied by coordinates of 3-space, but which one is which depends on the starting point and orientation of the observer. I think the same is true of the so called electromagnetic spectrum. They interact such that one can be converted to the other depending on the viewpoint of the observer.

I am not sure but it is possible that Electricity is also a composite dimension of at least 2 other sub dimensions (Volts and Amps) that can be interchanged under certain circumstances.

Other possible dimensions could be the sub-atomic forces, either as a composite dimension (like 3-space) or distinct dimensions that just closely interact (like 3-space).


Les: Science is often "****-bent" on disproving the existance of God, but everything I see presented as proof of His non-existance is just more awe in my eyes of His divine ways. "Big Bang", whimpering pop, oscillating expansion/contraction of 3-space, time travel, the speed of light, E=MC2... ALL are man's silly attempts to usurp His divine nature. (And, yes, I used the term "****-bent" as a double-entendre.)

But I guess we are deviating much too far afield from garden trains and getting into religiosity and I don't want to get banned from the site!









But if I haven't bent few brains and fried a few neurons by now, I never will.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

And may you all rest in peace. Later RJD


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 20 Sep 2009 06:45 PM 
the loudly proclaimed 'success' of the theory of the Big Bang is used to 'prove' there is no God.With all due respect, I don't think that's true at all. The Big Bang is NOT a theory of Creation as it does not describe the moment of the Big Bang, but rather what took place from 10-43 second AFTER the Big Bang and onwards. During the instant of the Big Bang itself the the 10-43 second afterwards, our physics breaks down. Therefore, anyone trying to use the Big Bang Theory to "prove" God didn't create the Universe or that there is no God apparently doesn't understand the theory nor the physics behind it. 

Dwight:

All that you said of the physics of the B.B. is correct, insofar as I know. Howsumever, that theory has been lifted from science into politics and metaphysics by exactly the type of people you describe, who also are agenda-driven. That was my point. 

Now, I'm done with this thread. I don't want problems either. 

Les


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

The biggest problem I have iwth the big bang theory is what happened before. One of the current theories is that the big bang was caused by two branes colliding. But this just moves the problem back a bit farther, what caused the branes to appear and why did they collide? 

Reminds me of the Greek argument as to why space has no boundaries. As I remember it went something like this. If the universe has a boundary, walk to the boundary carrying a spear. When you are standing at the boundary throw the spear outwards. The spear must go somewhere. Since the spear is part of our universe, where it goes must be part of our universe also. Since you can do this forever, there must be no boundary to our universe. That is laws must not change anywhere (see Dwight's comment on the big bang). 

The speed of light C is constant in a vacuum, which is what Einstein said.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

The Greek explanation makes good common sense. Many years ago, on public television, I saw a short film about a voyage to the end of the universe. In the film, a spaceship reaches the end of the universe, which is depicted as a white wall. One of the astronauts spacewalks to the wall, takes out a knife and cuts a hole in it. He pokes his head through the hole he has just made and looks around, then lets out a scream. As the camera moves away from a view of his head, from the other side of the white wall, you eventually see an egg, then a cluster of eggs in a nest, then a farm girl picking the eggs out of the nest. The end.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah yes... the ol' concentric universes theory. The one that I like the best is that the earth is an electron on an atom and someday somebody will flick on a light and the earth will go zipping off down the wire of "our" universe to light a lightbulb in the next larger one. Just think how many civilizations have probably been destroyed because YOU turned on your computer to read this.


----------



## tiespike (Jan 6, 2008)

If you read "in search of Shrodinger's cat", a book on quantum physics, written for the layman, you will realise that nothing exists except that which we believe in. 
Ergo:- God exists because we (some of us anyway) believe in him! or doesn't exist because we (some of us anyway) don't believe in him. 
You makes your choice and it is relevant to you. 
That is also my opinion, for what its worth, however get the book and read it. very interesting. 
regards 
Dave


----------



## SE18 (Feb 21, 2008)

I've got a question for the luminaries. Lets imagine for a moment that you could walk on the sun and peer back at Earth through a telescope. 

What you would see, would essentially be the Earth and all its human activities as existed 8 minutes earlier. Right? 

OK, not lets assume the even more unlikely. Let's say you could then be transported back to Earth in a fraction of a second (violating the speed of light in the process). 

Would you arrive at Earth 8 minutes before an event that you saw through your telescope happened? 

I've never been able to get answers to these. Thanks.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Would you arrive at Earth 8 minutes before an event that you saw through your telescope happened?No, because the event you saw was eight minutes EARLIER. If, at the moment you saw the event, you could instantly re-appear on Earth, the event you saw would still have happened eight minutes earlier because you were on the sun during that eight minutes waiting for the light from that event to reach it and you. 

It's actually more complicated than that since time runs slower in the stronger gravity field of the sun than it does in the weaker gravity field of the earth, but it's a relatively small difference (not sure exactly how much).


----------



## SE18 (Feb 21, 2008)

OK, so there's no way to theoretically go back in time. But you can see things as they existed back in time. For example, our nearest star besides sun. You are looking at it as it appeared 4 years ago but it is really a mirage, as it doesn't exist as you now see it. 

My brain is about fried thinking about this


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Sometimes I can't help but think of the people who use science to argue that there cannot be a creator/ higher power as having the hubris of a teenager. Saying so aloud, however, usually earns you the same pitying looks that they reserve for flat earthers and literal creationists (which also has an eerie resemblance to the look many teenagers give their hopelessly naive parents). But here is the thing they often overlook. If there is no God, or whatever you choose to call him/her, then the entire foundation of our civilization is built on sand. There is no true moral authority for laws, no basis for what is acceptable behavior, and no real reason to follow any commandment/edict except the one that goes 'Thou shalt not get caught."

Just like many of those teenagers are eventually surprised to find out how smart their dumb parents get in just a few years, I think it would be amusing should someday we discover we are a speck on a clover and there IS a Horton watching over us, lol.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

someday we discover we are a speck on a clover and there IS a Horton watching over us, lol.One of my favorite sayings is, "Reality is that which is really going on while you're busy thinking it's something else." hehehe 

What people tend to forget is that all these scientific theories are MODELS - models that currently best describe the observable, repeatable facts as we understand them. Even the word "fact" is misleading - it used to be a fact that the world was flat, a fact that the Universe was our galaxy all by itself, a fact that the Universe existed in a "steady state" and was forever unchanging and static, a fact that time flowed the same for everyone everywhere - the list goes on. With the exception of the flat world, all of these "facts" just mentioned were "facts" a mere 100 years or so ago. As we learn more, our "facts" change and the scientific models shift to accommodate. 

For example, the Standard Model best describes the world of particles as we currently understand it. While an extremely accurate and useful model as far as it goes, we know it's wrong someplace because it doesn't include relativity. Gravity stubbornly refuses to integrate into the quantum world, so in this particular case, we already know the model is fundamentally wrong someplace and will have to change. 

To try and use science to prove or dis-prove to existence of something beyond its reach is foolhardy at best and the worst kind of hubris at worst, and is a complete misuse and misunderstanding of what science actually is. MHO.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

I can't say that I believe in the creationist theories, but think of these little tidbits; As was mentioned, the makeup of the planets, stars, galaxies, etc., resemble atoms and electrons. We are composed of the same percentage of water as the earth has. The moon's orbit is twenty eight days. Female (human) menstrual cycles are twenty eight days. Concrete cures to 99.99% of it ultimate strength in twenty eight days. It's entirely possible that these are all coincidences. And I am sure there are many more than I know of. And in the case of the female cycle, it may only be humans with that number of days, so who are we to discount all of the other life on earth.









These are just some of the things that have accumulated in my mind over the last sixty one years. I would like to make room for other things. So please, someone must come up with answers for life's riddles.








And please don't turn yours lights off!


----------



## Bills (Feb 20, 2008)

Female (human) menstrual cycles are the same as the lunar period, because they evolved on the a planet which has a 28 day lunar cycle.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Bills on 22 Sep 2009 08:00 PM 
Female (human) menstrual cycles are the same as the lunar period, because they evolved on the a planet which has a 28 day lunar cycle. 

So... why didn't all the other animals evolve to the same 28 day period???


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Madman,

I was not aware that you'd reached the 'Age of Reason'.









No one will ever come up with Final answers to these 'riddles' because they are questions concerning ultimate truths: Why are we? (Why do we exist?) What is our purpose in life? Why do we even stop to wonder what our purpose in life is? (Some never do, but I'm excluding all but questing thinkers.) How did the first Man and Woman get here? Where are we ultimately going? Is there any Meaning to my life, and if so, what? Why is there meaning to my life? If there *is*, why is there?

Why are we? Science says: First, there was nothing. No time, space, dimensions. Try to imagine 'Nothing'. You'll find you can't, because the human mind isn't capable of it; we exist in a four-dimensional universe. Now, from the 'nothing' a Singularity (a mathematical term for a dimensionless point) appeared. Think about a cue ball that has no diameter, weight or doesn't exist in our time so we can see it and poke at it with a cuestick. Big Bang folk posit that into the First Nothing came this immeasuably small point, and it exploded. That explosion kicked off everything we see around us today. I won't go through a tiresome repeat of the Evolutionary theory, except to say it's best to always keep in mind that it's a Theory, not a proven fact. In other words, it's one of many attempts to answer the ultimate truths. This same science posits, in the Laws of thermodynamics, that all systems lacking external input of energy decay to a condition known as Entropy, or cessation of all molecular movement. 2nd Law, I think.

I can see you've read books and have a questing mind. Have you ever read the Bible, or do you rely on what you've heard about it? I mean, read it like a history book, which it partly is. Among everything else both claimed for and agaisnt it, it offers an explanation for all the Ultimate Truths. The writers also invented History, not as we know it today, but as showing a direction to future events, which no other literature of the time had yet done. To date, it gives the most complete range of answers to the Ultimate questions. And it does so in a simple way that any plain man can read and obtain comfort from.

In Science, there is no comfort offered. As an illustration for today, it's becoming fashionable in some circles to speak of killing old people (or at least stop treating them for age-related disabilities) because they're no longer useful. And this notion is not new. This outrages the inner sense of self of many people who do ask the kinds of questions you ask. Outraged, many object: "Wait: I fought in a war, I paid taxes, I was a good parent, now, I paid into SS, and I want my share back!" The Science-based answer is, "Who ever told you that you were owed anything?" The Bible posits else.

A big problem is in trying to get people to read the Bible, not as a theological work, but as a work of history and technology. (Yes, it give its version of how the basic technologies came to be.) There is an active effort to scorn both that ancient work, (ca 1,000 BC for some parts) and the people who read it. Have you ever wondered why? These folks are called 'Fringies' and worse by people who expect death is the end of all, and who don't mind contemplating killing off the aged and defective to give others a happier, better life which they believe to be meaningless and puposeless. What do you call that kind of thinking? Which group seeks to end life and which to save and enhance it? Which, the Secularists or the Christians, see each life as unique and worthwhile, a one-of-a-kind event? Which sees nothing wrong with killing even babies who've survived a botched abortion, somehow? (Now, there's the ulitmate double-whammy for you.)

As I said 'way back in this thread, you've got two choices, one is gauranteed by ages of experience: you die, you're dead. The other offers a hope that some part of us will live on, and gives written directions to attain that hope.

Respectfully,

Les


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

The answer to Live, the Universe and Everything is: 


42


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 23 Sep 2009 09:17 AM 
The answer to Live, the Universe and Everything is: 


42 



Metric, or S.A.E.?

Vulp


----------



## SE18 (Feb 21, 2008)

isn't that from the movie Hitchikers Guide to the Universe?


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm not a believer in the "Big Bang" per se but rather liken it to a "Big Push". An explosion delivers all its force at once which would infer that any debris from the explosion would either continue to expand at a constant rate in the absense of gravitational force or gradually slow down due to the accumulative effect of gravity. 

According to the latest findings however the Universe's expansion is accelerating. There is talk of the "Great Attractor" pulling everything towards it but the same thing could be attained through the application of continuous force or "push". Something that had enough power to overcome the crunch of the singularity tore everything apart. If that thing was a constant force then the acceleration could be explained. Too, in this case, the greater the expansion and the greater the distance between objects, the less the mutual gravity's ability to hold or slow the expansion. Might that push be considered simply as "the Word"? 

Isn't Cosmology interesting?


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SE18 on 23 Sep 2009 09:49 AM 
isn't that from the movie Hitchikers Guide to the Universe? 

From the Scott Adams book, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"... a "trilogy" (meaning three books) that now is up to 5 books (though one of them is barely a page long). Then it was made into a TV show in England, then a movie.

The "Ultimate answer to Life, the Universe and Everything" may be 42, but it makes no sense because you really don't know the question.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Richard Smith on 23 Sep 2009 10:47 AM 
I'm not a believer in the "Big Bang" per se but rather liken it to a "Big Push". An explosion delivers all its force at once which would infer that any debris from the explosion would either continue to expand at a constant rate in the absense of gravitational force or gradually slow down due to the accumulative effect of gravity. 

According to the latest findings however the Universe's expansion is accelerating. There is talk of the "Great Attractor" pulling everything towards it but the same thing could be attained through the application of continuous force or "push". Something that had enough power to overcome the crunch of the singularity tore everything apart. If that thing was a constant force then the acceleration could be explained. Too, in this case, the greater the expansion and the greater the distance between objects, the less the mutual gravity's ability to hold or slow the expansion. Might that push be considered simply as "the Word"? 

Isn't Cosmology interesting?  

I knew a young lass where I worked that admitted that she had signed for a series of classes at the local college in "Cosmology" and was upset when she went to the first COUPLE of classes and they didn't even mention cosmetics or hair care and THEN discovered what she had really wanted was Cosmotology. hee hee hee. 


(Edit: No, she was not blonde.)


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 23 Sep 2009 10:54 AM 
Posted By Richard Smith on 23 Sep 2009 10:47 AM 
I'm not a believer in the "Big Bang" per se but rather liken it to a "Big Push". An explosion delivers all its force at once which would infer that any debris from the explosion would either continue to expand at a constant rate in the absense of gravitational force or gradually slow down due to the accumulative effect of gravity. 

According to the latest findings however the Universe's expansion is accelerating. There is talk of the "Great Attractor" pulling everything towards it but the same thing could be attained through the application of continuous force or "push". Something that had enough power to overcome the crunch of the singularity tore everything apart. If that thing was a constant force then the acceleration could be explained. Too, in this case, the greater the expansion and the greater the distance between objects, the less the mutual gravity's ability to hold or slow the expansion. Might that push be considered simply as "the Word"? 

Isn't Cosmology interesting?  

I knew a young lass where I worked that admitted that she had signed for a series of classes at the local college in "Cosmology" and was upset when she went to the first COUPLE of classes and they didn't even mention cosmetics or hair care and THEN discovered what she had really wanted was Cosmotology. hee hee hee. 


(Edit: No, she was not blonde.)
Hehe! It's surprising how many make that mistake. I've been "corrected" a couple times for changing the subject when I referred to Cosmology in Astrophysics discussions.


----------



## SE18 (Feb 21, 2008)

good one! similar to a class in astrology


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Richard wrote: " Might that push be considered simply as "the Word"?

I personally would suggest that 'the Word' (hope you haven't made a typo) or the Logos, hasn't much meaning outside the 'Creator God and Mankind' context. So far as we know, we're the only life on this planet--and in this vicinity--that has the intelligence, not to mention the need, to pose and search for answers to such questions.

Me, I'm gettin' pretty old. As a kid, I'd stand out in the field and look at the band of the Milky Way and ache to know what was out there. I've come to suspect, just more problems.









Les


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Huh? I am not seeing the connection







. Then why wouldn't everything that has to do with anything, be on a twenty eight day cycle


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

Les,

Very well thought out rebuttal, and much food for thought. On the bible issue, I have only read small pieces of it in the manner in which you suggest, a history book. Now as I get older, I would like to delve into it once again. I think I might get more out of it. 

On the issue of nothing, "Try to imagine 'Nothing'." Atreu, the child warrior, knew that the nothing was comming. So it must be _something_.








"The Never Ending Story"


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Dan,

Actually, you got the first draft. It could stand some polishing.

On the concept of 'Nothing', you've got a solid point: 'Nothing' is a concept something loosely akin to 'zero' in math. Like so much in this largely bipolar world, 'Nothing' is a contrast to an existing physical entity by noting its lack. Or I suppose, in metaphysics, even a conceptual construct. 'Nothing' denotes a quality, or the absence of a quality. (For instance, paint on a board vs a bare board, where the subject is 'paint'.) I was thinking in purely physical terms of outer space, which is not a total vacuum, vs the concept of a singularity.

Wife is rattling my food dish, gotta go!

Les


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Just watched the latest two-part "Clash of the Gods" episode (History Channel) on Odysseus. When the Cyclops asked his name, Odysseus replied that his name was "nobody" (or "no one" or "no man" depending upon the translation). Later, right after blinding the Cyclops, the other Cyclopes living on the island heard his shreiks of pain and rage, and came to his closed stone door asking what was wrong. The Cyclops replied that "Nobody" was hurting him, so the other Cyclopes went away.


Seemed to tie in.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

On the existance of nothing.

When you are out driving your car and come to a Stop sign, you stop (hopefully) and look to the left and then to the right and if you see no cars, you proceed. Right?

How is it that you can "see no cars"?


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Les on 23 Sep 2009 04:09 PM 
Me, I'm gettin' pretty old. As a kid, I'd stand out in the field and look at the band of the Milky Way and ache to know what was out there. I've come to suspect, just more problems.









Les 


Interesting how, the older you get, the more cynical you get, but at the same time (often) come to find more hope and truths in the words written in red. Some may call it all superstitious nonsense, but if reading it makes people feel happier and healthier, then there's worse things to put your trust in (Politicians, ambulance chasers, quacks (both physical and spiritual) and used car salesmen come to mind







)

Physics is sorta fun, quantum mechanics makes my head hurt.... too many people these days don't CARE at ALL about 'how' or 'why', unless there is a bunch of dollars in it for them.


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

There are several "absolute" definitions of nothing that few can argue with.... 

1) Political rhetoric and promises out of Washington. 
2) Most TV programs. 
3) Politically correct opinion. 
4) Outsourced customer service. 
5) Opening statement from your bank, etc., "In order to serve you better..." 
6) "Make big money at home working only 4 hours a week." 
7) "YOU HAVE WON...click here.." 

I'm not sure how these nothings affect the Universe or Creation.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Dwight,

Have you ever considered that, with just one eye, would the Cyclops have depth perception?









Another thing that's always troubled me about that story: what kind of hinges do you hang a stone door with?









Ol' Vulp


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Semper wrote: "How is it that you can "see no cars"?"

Ummmm ... because there weren't any?









Ol' Vulp


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Mik wrote: "Physics is sorta fun, quantum mechanics makes my head hurt...."

Einstein wasn't too happy with quantum mechanics either. Seems he objected to the 'uncertainty factor'. Here's an example of the Uncertainy Factor at work in the hobby train world:

The NMRA. I am uncertain what they do, other than generate causes for fights and expressions of some really good sarcasm on occasion. This ties in with ageing. Of late I have remembered the gauge of S ga Hi Rail to = 0.808". Being unable to sleep, I came up here to search for other data and happened to stumble across an old post wherein the responder, a dealer, tells me that by the new NMRA standards S ga finescale = 0.883", while S ga Hi Rail =0.875", but was being brought down to 0.883".

Now, _there's _an example of the Uncertainty Factor at work.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Richard Smith on 23 Sep 2009 10:55 PM 
There are several "absolute" definitions of nothing that few can argue with.... 

1) Political rhetoric and promises out of Washington. 
2) Most TV programs. 
3) Politically correct opinion. 
4) Outsourced customer service. 
5) Opening statement from your bank, etc., "In order to serve you better..." 
6) "Make big money at home working only 4 hours a week." 
7) "YOU HAVE WON...click here.." 

I'm not sure how these nothings affect the Universe or Creation.  
Adversely.


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

You got the syntax wrong in your statement. It is not "see no cars". it is "no see cars". Makes a difference doesn't it LOL. 

P.S. The greeks also "proved" that a faster person could not catch up to and pass a slower person. I would take all their "proofs" with a bit of salt.


----------



## cephius (Jan 10, 2008)

It has been stated several times in this thread that "The world is flat" was a known fact in the past. I'm not sure I agree with that statement. The shape of the world has been "known" since antiquity. In every age there have been people who knew the correct shape of the world. Unlike the statement "The world is the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies revolve around it" I don't believe there was ever an effort to set "The world is flat" as a fact by governing bodies.

There are those lacking data who make incorrect statements. Does that make their statements "known fact" when others who have the data believe otherwise? We see that often now when the media doesn't take the time to understand complex issues and uses a sound bite to sum up. The sound bite may be completely wrong. The general population picks it up and propagates it. Does that make it a "known fact"?


"The world is flat" was a mass media sound bite, not a known fact. 


This thread is too good to die


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

While you are correct that a few have known the world was spherical at many points down through history, the general consensus for thousands of years was that the world was flat and if one sailed too far from known lands, one would fall off the edge of the world (or get eaten by sea monsters, etc.). 

Much depends upon how one defines the word "Fact"... is it a generally agreed upon consensus by a large majority of people, or does it require declaration/endorsement/enforcement by some governing body. If the general consensus definition is used, "facts" could differ from place to place, tribe to tribe, and culture to culture. Today we may label these "cultural traditions" or somesuch, but to those living in that culture, they were "facts."


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

"what kind of hinges do you hang a stone door with?" by Les 
Really big ones


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Ain't youse guys ever heard of Stone Hinge?


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 24 Sep 2009 06:47 PM 
Ain't youse guys ever heard of Stone Hinge? 

Hmm. Where'd they get oil stone, then?









Vulp


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

They probably had one of us Live Steamers running through the area... once we do that EVERYTHING gets oily.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Les on 25 Sep 2009 08:23 AM 
Posted By Semper Vaporo on 24 Sep 2009 06:47 PM 
Ain't youse guys ever heard of Stone Hinge? 

Hmm. Where'd they get oil stone, then?









Vulp


Colorado Oil shale, of course.


----------



## John Allman (Jan 2, 2008)

I wonder if they cleaned the stone hinges with distilled or deionized water, and how long the hinges lasted after that. Of course, if using lucas mystery oil, perhaps it wouldn't rust.


----------



## RimfireJim (Mar 25, 2009)

Posted By cephius on 24 Sep 2009 12:23 PM 
It has been stated several times in this thread that "The world is flat" was a known fact in the past. I'm not sure I agree with that statement. The shape of the world has been "known" since antiquity. In every age there have been people who knew the correct shape of the world. Unlike the statement "The world is the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies revolve around it" I don't believe there was ever an effort to set "The world is flat" as a fact by governing bodies.

There are those lacking data who make incorrect statements. Does that make their statements "known fact" when others who have the data believe otherwise? We see that often now when the media doesn't take the time to understand complex issues and uses a sound bite to sum up. The sound bite may be completely wrong. The general population picks it up and propagates it. Does that make it a "known fact"?


"The world is flat" was a mass media sound bite, not a known fact. 


This thread is too good to die











A former coworker of mine said he had a high school science teacher who liked to say, "We used to think (insert obsolete theory), but now we _know _(current theory, often assumed to be the end-all 'fact')" to encourage open-mindeness among his students (a rare quality in academia - sad when you stop to think about it). A good book that illustrates this, and also sheds light on how some things actually came about versus popular history is "The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes Our Hope for the Cure" by Edward S. Golub. link to Amazon.com Highly recommended (by me) reading. It's been out a while (1997), so your library might have a copy.


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Speaking from the "center of the Universe" (Port Orford) we here know whereof we speak. The earth is indeed flat and you will fall off if you venture too far. I can state this unequivocably as we live and play so close to the edge!


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Your Universe must be pretty small... if Port Orford is at the "Center of the Universe" and you "live and play so close to the edge".


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 25 Sep 2009 03:18 PM 
Your Universe must be pretty small... if Port Orford is at the "Center of the Universe" and you "live and play so close to the edge". Not so small, just far out! []


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 25 Sep 2009 10:30 AM 
Posted By Les on 25 Sep 2009 08:23 AM 
Posted By Semper Vaporo on 24 Sep 2009 06:47 PM 
Ain't youse guys ever heard of Stone Hinge? 

Hmm. Where'd they get oil stone, then?









Vulp


Colorado Oil shale, of course. 



Wait a minute: Odysess (I'm lousy with foreign names) & Hearty Crew were rockin' around the Black Sea, Asia Minor. Except in those days it was referred to as 'Here' to differentiate between where they were and somewhere else, Lat & Long not having been discovered. Greenwich hadn't been discovered yet, so no one knew of the 0 deg line that is located there, from which geniuses of rare caliber deduced that it there were longitude lines, there had to be Latitude ones, since, as I've already explained in another post, this is a bipolar world, in the main. So it would follow that if there was one scribed in the ground, there had to be a complimentary one. Since our minds normally default to sex, someone soon decided the Latitude had to be at right angles (or 'crosswise' because the Greeks were still doping out angles 'n whatnot).

I digress. Odie & Pals knew where they were: around the Black Sea area, more or less, though it _could've_ been the Eastern Atlantic, since their GPS still pretty much depended on the North Star.

Now, *if *they were in the Atlantic, *then *they might've gone to Colorado, fought off a few remaining dinosaurs, and gotten oil shale.

Which leads to interesting speculation: was there prehistoric trade across the Atlantic?

If not, then I fear you are under a misimpression regarding the source of stone oil.









Ol' Vulp


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Les:

I am sorry, I got distracted... what did you say?


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

It's been pretty much proven that the Vikings got here long before Columbus, and may have gone exploring pretty far inland, probably via the great lakes. There's also a lot of speculation, but not yet definitive proof that the Phoenicians (from Carthage) were here a good while BEFORE that (about 350-320BC. There are stones in Massachusetts and Iowa that seem to bear Phoenician inscriptions).... But then Odysseus spent a great deal of time wandering lost in Pheonician lands, so maybe the Cyclops lived in Colorado? lol


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

And remember, Odysseus wandered about for almost twenty years. He could have turned up anywhere!


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Les on 25 Sep 2009 06:44 PM 
Posted By toddalin on 25 Sep 2009 10:30 AM 
Posted By Les on 25 Sep 2009 08:23 AM 
Posted By Semper Vaporo on 24 Sep 2009 06:47 PM 
Ain't youse guys ever heard of Stone Hinge? 

Hmm. Where'd they get oil stone, then?









Vulp


Colorado Oil shale, of course. 



Wait a minute: Odysess (I'm lousy with foreign names) & Hearty Crew were rockin' around the Black Sea, Asia Minor. Except in those days it was referred to as 'Here' to differentiate between where they were and somewhere else, Lat & Long not having been discovered. Greenwich hadn't been discovered yet, so no one knew of the 0 deg line that is located there, from which geniuses of rare caliber deduced that it there were longitude lines, there had to be Latitude ones, since, as I've already explained in another post, this is a bipolar world, in the main. So it would follow that if there was one scribed in the ground, there had to be a complimentary one. Since our minds normally default to sex, someone soon decided the Latitude had to be at right angles (or 'crosswise' because the Greeks were still doping out angles 'n whatnot).

I digress. Odie & Pals knew where they were: around the Black Sea area, more or less, though it _could've_ been the Eastern Atlantic, since their GPS still pretty much depended on the North Star.

Now, *if *they were in the Atlantic, *then *they might've gone to Colorado, fought off a few remaining dinosaurs, and gotten oil shale.

Which leads to interesting speculation: was there prehistoric trade across the Atlantic?

If not, then I fear you are under a misimpression regarding the source of stone oil.









Ol' Vulp








OK, then maybe in that part of the world is was basalt. You ever tried to hold a bass? Very slippery indeed.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 25 Sep 2009 08:39 PM 
Posted By Les on 25 Sep 2009 06:44 PM 
Posted By toddalin on 25 Sep 2009 10:30 AM 
Posted By Les on 25 Sep 2009 08:23 AM 
Posted By Semper Vaporo on 24 Sep 2009 06:47 PM 
Ain't youse guys ever heard of Stone Hinge? 

Hmm. Where'd they get oil stone, then?









Vulp


Colorado Oil shale, of course. 



Wait a minute: Odysess (I'm lousy with foreign names) & Hearty Crew were rockin' around the Black Sea, Asia Minor. Except in those days it was referred to as 'Here' to differentiate between where they were and somewhere else, Lat & Long not having been discovered. Greenwich hadn't been discovered yet, so no one knew of the 0 deg line that is located there, from which geniuses of rare caliber deduced that it there were longitude lines, there had to be Latitude ones, since, as I've already explained in another post, this is a bipolar world, in the main. So it would follow that if there was one scribed in the ground, there had to be a complimentary one. Since our minds normally default to sex, someone soon decided the Latitude had to be at right angles (or 'crosswise' because the Greeks were still doping out angles 'n whatnot).

I digress. Odie & Pals knew where they were: around the Black Sea area, more or less, though it _could've_ been the Eastern Atlantic, since their GPS still pretty much depended on the North Star.

Now, *if *they were in the Atlantic, *then *they might've gone to Colorado, fought off a few remaining dinosaurs, and gotten oil shale.

Which leads to interesting speculation: was there prehistoric trade across the Atlantic?

If not, then I fear you are under a misimpression regarding the source of stone oil.









Ol' Vulp








OK, then maybe in that part of the world is was basalt. You ever tried to hold a bass? Very slippery indeed. 

No, but once I succeeded in actually hitting a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle. Does that count?









V.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

All this talk about energy.........oi! If we could somehow capture the suns







energy that it produces for one minute, then the worlds total energy







requirements would be met for the next one million years!! At the same time, we could put alot of oil industry lobbyists out of work


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

All those lobbyists would have jobs in the government handling all the taxes that would be levied on it.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2008)

HA HA HA HA HA $ad but true $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------

