1

Just Chat! / Re: What is Trump's opinion about chemtrails?

« on: 22/07/2016 22:07:59 »

Ehhhh.  They ain't hurtin ya...  No need to sweat 'em so much...

2

Physiology & Medicine / Why is life so delicate in regards to temperature?

« on: 22/07/2016 20:23:30 »

I've always wondered this... How the temperature range found in the universe is so immense, from just above absolute zero to trillions of degrees celsius; yet life will generally only thrive in what, like a 200 degree range?  That's like .0000000028 of a %.  That's kinda insane to think about right? 

But why, if atoms can obviously handle such an incredibly large range of temperatures, would life, which is nothing but a collection of atoms at the end of the day, be so delicate, to only be able to handle .0000000028 of a % of the universal range?

Kinda a weird question, but just a curiosity.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How come stars won't form if the dust cloud is too hot?

« on: 22/07/2016 18:28:41 »

I think I might just put away my textbooks and read Evans posts instead.

Hear hear to that!  I'm awed by both his knowledge and ability to impart it on others...

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How come stars won't form if the dust cloud is too hot?

« on: 21/07/2016 17:37:10 »

This is new to me as well. Can you post a link to or reference for this article?

Here's the relevant quote from the article:

“Begin with a “primordial cloud of hydrogen and helium, suffused in a sea of ultraviolet radiation,” Bromm said. “You crunch this cloud in the gravitational field of a dark-matter halo. Normally, the cloud would be able to cool, and fragment to form stars. However, the ultraviolet photons keep the gas hot, thus suppressing any star formation. These are the desired, near-miraculous conditions: collapse without fragmentation! As the gas gets more and more compact, eventually you have the conditions for a massive black hole.”

http://www.universetoday.com/129806/indications-early-forming-direct-collapse-black-hole-seen/

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How come stars won't form if the dust cloud is too hot?

« on: 21/07/2016 17:24:07 »

I'll see what I can find.  It was an article I got through my smartnews app on my mobile, which isn't a browser so doesn't have a space to copy the web address.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does the Higgs Boson give mass to matter?

« on: 21/07/2016 15:58:42 »

This Naked Science Scrapbook episode on the Higgs will be helpful for you:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=12;action=post2

Incorrect link.  I'd be interested in the one you were trying to provide as well.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How long is one second?

« on: 21/07/2016 15:44:37 »

PS: Mr Box, I know that you are familiar with this definition. So why do you keep asking?

I ask and keep asking because my discussion always ends without a conclusion to my question.

I think that I would all that a lie. I am pretty sure that Thebox asks these questions because Thebox has his own, special answer independent from any scientific work ever done on the question and Thebox wants to try to share this special answer with people.

Indeed.

It's always one big mindcluck.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How come stars won't form if the dust cloud is too hot?

« on: 21/07/2016 15:41:49 »

Oh c'mon, I know the members here gotta know the answer no? lol

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How come stars won't form if the dust cloud is too hot?

« on: 20/07/2016 22:59:46 »

I was reading an article yesterday about their having found some evidence to support the direct collapse theory; that dust clouds directly collapsed to form supermassive black holes prior to galaxy formation etc.  And one thing the piqued my interest in the article was it saying that the temperature was so hot that the hydrogen and helium couldn't collapse into stars, but instead directly collapsed into black holes.  But I thought the heat generated by gravity and the particles bumping into each other or whatever is how stars collapse to start the fusion process to begin with?  So why wouldn't this occur if things were too hot?? 

My apologies if a stupid question.  But definitely something I hadn't prior known.

10

Just Chat! / Re: What is Trump's opinion about chemtrails?

« on: 20/07/2016 19:51:48 »

HAHAHA!!!  Love it.

11

Just Chat! / Re: What is Trump's opinion about chemtrails?

« on: 20/07/2016 17:27:28 »

Who cares.  That orange skinned clown will never get anywhere near the white house, thankfully... 

12

General Science / Re: Question about near death experiences

« on: 20/07/2016 15:54:16 »

I am also going to ask something else here.  Think of the most horrifying dream you had and how horrible that felt.  The negative feelings/emotions in our nightmares tend to be far more worse than the ones we have when we are awake.  The ones we have in our nightmares are like abnormal mental states that we just simply don't experience in our waking lives.
 
Now during ndes, people say they are conscious.  That it is more real than real.  So does the fact that they are conscious make the negative feelings/emotions they experience during their ndes not as bad?  Or are they just as bad as they are in our nightmares?  Are they experiencing their negative feelings/emotions just as they would in their nightmares, or are they experiencing them normally like when we are awake?

   I can only go from my own experiences. The most upsetting dream was when I saw the souls of man flowing toward the light at the center of the Earth. There they were absorbed unto the collective. I was only the observer but at the time being collectivized into the light of the natural God was frightening. Yet that is what many people see. It took a long time to recover from that dream. In the end the process is not horrible but a loving transisition from an individual soul to a collective soul of the Earth God.
   The experience of the awake dreams or hallucinations involved intense fright and fear. Our eyes normally see outward. Yet during these experiences we lose control of our vision. We are lost in a different world. The vision is intensely powerful with powerful colors which we do not normally see with our regular vision. The audio is strong. There is great fear that we will not be able to recover to a normal state, that we will be lost in a world of dreams. It is fearful and hopeless.
  When driving things would repeat over and over again. fortunately I got split images so that part of my vision could see the road and part of my vision could see the information. Thus I was tortured by the visions or awake dreams but I was not destroyed.
  Anyway that was a long time ago and fortunately I have not experienced such things lately. But it took over 20 years to recover from the experiences.

Knowing that there's no god and no soul might help keep one grounded in a similar situation.  Kinda like how in the movies last night when my son was a bit scared, I kept telling him to rationalize and remind himself that none of it was real...

13

Just Chat! / Re: Do you think the Shroud of Turin is a fake or real

« on: 19/07/2016 19:37:03 »

In that case, whatever it is is a fake, by definition, or an irrelevant original. Either way, it isn't a sound basis for developing a theory of anything other than human gullibility.

I did not develop a theory about the shroud. It is just an example in my books of the interaction of higher light speed energy and our light speed C energy. And to me it points out the possibility that Jesus was a cosmic reincnarnate.

Jesus was but a man.. as any other man.. except he had delusions of grandeur and the intellect and ego to totally play his society at the time as total friggin fools, played a part, the suckers bought it, and thousands of years later billions of suckers still buy it, making him one of the greatest liars of all history.  But a man nonetheless, same as anyone else, and he's now not even a rotting corpse any longer, but instead a pile of bones.  A nothing.  A nobody.  That's a fact.  No, god did not send his son here to die for your sins, no, there is not some magic fairy realm, no, jesus did not 'ascend up to heaven', which technically would've been him flying off the planet sideways, no, he did not rise from the dead blah blah blah.  I mean seriously, you're on a science forum, so you've gotta have some knowledge of science.  So c'mon, be objective.  Step out of your brainwashing.  Objectively look at the situation and realize how ludicrously insane it is to believe.  How you'd have to literally suspend belief in all you've ever learned about physics and science.  What has science ever, friggin ever shown you, that would lead you to believe any of it all could be true whatsoever?  What have you ever learned about the way the universe works that would lend credibility to our souls flying to heaven when we die, of anybody being able to rise from the dead after 3 days, of any body flying off to heaven (though it would've been sideways), or any of the magic fairy man in the sky bull that so many believe?  Gimme a break.  Use your head.  Religion is a farce for those too ignorant to see reality.  Admit it to yourself.  You'll feel better, and liberated.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Should Pluto be re-established as an honorary planet?

« on: 18/07/2016 19:42:11 »

Experts met and discussed what the definition of a planet should be, and that's what they came up with, causing pluto to no longer meet the criteria.  Logically speaking, I really don't have a problem with the definition they came up with.  It actually kinda makes sense.  But I don't really think calling it a dwarf planet demotes it all that much, and like the other poster said isn't much different than a title of honorary planet.  Dwarf planet actually even sounds a bit more legitimate, to be honest.  So nah, it shouldn't be called an honorary planet any more than 2nd place should be called an honorary winner.  Just because it's a dwarf planet doesn't mean it still isn't worthy of respect, awe and admiration.

15

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Should cannabis legalization allow cultivation for your own use?

« on: 18/07/2016 15:45:17 »

It isn't about science.

Precisely.

It's never about science with you or IAMREALITY.

That's exactly why it's impossible to converse with either one of you on this "science forum".

~

Actually I think your conclusions might be faulty.  I believe the fact that Jeffrey and I actually do believe in science, that we appreciate the fact that it is rooted in facts, critical thinking, logic, and reasoning, that you find it impossible to converse with us.  It appears you lash out whenever someone presents you with anything rooted in those things that doesn't align with your skewed ideals.

Trying to make a claim that anyone takes a 'dose' of marijuana is laughable.  No they don't.  They smoke a joint.  They get high.  Just a few hits is enough to bring their blood concentrations up to the level in the studies that showed driving impairment.  And I loathe when someone tries to pick out exceptions and then try and claim them to be the rule.  That's what politicians do, and what makes them some of the lowest life forms on the planet.  The inescapable fact here, is that for the overwhelming majority of users, if they got into a motor vehicle soon after getting high, their blood concentrations of THC would be more than enough to impair their motor skills and ability to drive as safe as they would if they hadn't.  That's a fact.  An inarguable, inescapable fact.  And no, it's nowhere near as bad as alcohol.  Of course it isn't.  But even if there's one motor vehicle death related to marijuana per 100 (making the number up) from those who were drunk, I'm pretty sure the family of the one would feel the pain just as deeply...

16

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Should cannabis legalization allow cultivation for your own use?

« on: 17/07/2016 08:50:44 »

Fortunately, I understand that the soporific effects of the drug discourages cannabis users from trying to drive a vehicle immediately.

Where are you getting your information from?

I've driven for 20+ years either before/during or after smoking and I've had zero accidents or speeding tickets.... and I'm 40.

Similar scenarios with other individuals are virtually endless.

Oy vey what a ridiculously short sighted position. It's completely irrelevant that you haven't yet harmed yourself or others.  All it takes is once.  And the inescapable fact is that you're putting others at risk by your irresponsible behavior, period.  That much is certain, regardless of the denials. And my god the tone you take here in the forums, just such a lack of respect.

17

Just Chat! / Re: There is no god and Richard Dawkins is his prophet?

« on: 16/07/2016 15:54:36 »

We know our universe is almost unimaginable ancient when compared to our the history of our civilisation. Thus it is logical given the vast boundless universe of untold billions of stars and even more planets that there might be other civilisation a billion years in advance of ours.

And they would have absolutely no problem convincing you they were Almighty God or make you bow down and worship them as deities.

They would have all sorts of trouble convincing me of such.  I'd be intelligent enough to know that they're like, just really intelligent and stuff.  I would also probably feel more like I'm home, rather than stuck on a planet of retarded monkeys as I oftentimes feel lol.  But I bow down to no one.  Ever.  Period.

So why not go a step further and imagine an intelligence that is beyond human comprehension , that has created the universe, set its boundaries and mathematic laws in which to sustain its existence.

Wait... did you just tell me to imagine something beyond human comprehension???  Hmmmm... Paradox...

If you could go back to the middle ages, with all the paraphernalia of our modern world and demonstrate some of it on the primitives, they would bow down and worship you as God incarnate.

That's cause I'm awesome...

God is just  a huge extrapolation on that reasoning. Our universe is bound up by cause and effect, but it can't go back forever at some point the must be something everlasting  outside the confines of time an  "Uncaused Cause" of all existence and that my friend is the Almighty God  who you so passionately dispise.

This couldn't be further from the truth.  God is no such thing.  And the god you reference, the god you always speak of, the silly non existent god of established religion, is no such thing.  And I wouldn't criticize anyone for holding that specific point of view, in fact, I've even repeatedly said I make no claims to knowing that such a type of god doesn't exist, but that it would have zero to do with established religion, and it wouldn't be sentient nor able to answer prayer.  But you can't ascribe to the god of religion, try and cram it down our throats repeatedly even, then try and come off reasonable with the above as your defense.  Cause we know it's not what you truly believe.   But I would make a few points of note on the statement anyway though.  First off, yes, it can go back forever.  No, there doesn't have to be something everlasting whatsoever (that's fact).  And furthermore, though there can be an uncaused cause, if there was a specific cause it still doesn't mean for even a second that there would be a darn thing almighty about it at all.  Nor that it had to be sentient, or intelligent, or anything more than merely, well, a cause.  And no, that is not the god I despise, you are wrong there.  I would not despise such a god.  I despise the god of religion.  The fake god. The one that doesn't exist.  The one that's used for so much evil, the one with its silly laws, and contradictory rules, that supposedly decides what babies live, whose wives die (yes I'm a widower), and that considers people every bit as decent and admirable as anyone else to be sinners and worthy of contempt or death.  The little silly magic man in the sky that people give up their strength to, that they hold responsible for everything, that they thank for everything (the doctor didn't save their life right?  But god.  So ridiculous), the god that rules politics, and keeps society from so much intellectual advancement.  That is the god I so passionately despise.  The crutch of a god, the god that causes a block of true intellect and vision.  That is not the god you are referencing above, even if I still disagree with your reasoning for it.

18

Just Chat! / Re: There is no god and Richard Dawkins is his prophet?

« on: 16/07/2016 07:23:12 »

Blah blah blah blah.  God is nothing, a nobody, a pos creation of the weak that causes the weak to commit evil in his name.  No good comes from that pos. Only evil.  Atheism is superior by far.  By far. 

God isn't real, not in the sense that you perceive him to be anyway.  That much is fact.  Yes, fact.  All those with heightened intellectual awareness know this.  He's a nothing, a nobody, a figment of imagination.  We live, we die, we're done.  Period. Religion is for the weak.  Those that believe are dinosaurs, and will be going extinct just the same.  Maybe then as a society we can finally progress. Cause all religion does is hold our intellect back. But no, he isn't real, he isn't a spirit, he exists not at all.  When you die soon (you're old right?) you're gonna be sooooo damn disappointed lol.

19

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Re: Is homosexuality genetic?

« on: 16/07/2016 00:16:52 »

Go look through my post history and you'll see I gladly help others when the opportunity arises [take the CFS thread as an example].

Help? Lmao.  All you did in that thread was tell the patient what the competent Dr said they had was a fake disease, even though it's fact that it isn't with mountains upon mountains of evidence that proves it, then diagnosed them instead with something they almost certainly don't have lol. No, you helped no one in that thread at all. But I guess we should keep that fight there. 

And in this thread all you're doing is being highly offensive and waging a battle based on zero science and that is hurtful to so many, by claiming homosexuality is a choice. It is also a highly absurd position. They may not fully understand what is happening in nature that causes it to happen biologically, but they most certainly know it isn't by choice. And if it's one fact that stands out above all others by a mile that proves it, it's the 1-2% rate of success of conversion therapy.  That squashes your argument on its face. 

And Alan,

No, god isn't losing any grip for he isn't real in that capacity, souls also don't exist and aren't 'placed' in anyone, and evolution has nothing to do with homosexuality so isn't losing its grip either (or at least it wouldn't seem it does, unless some sort of natural solution to population control) .  Hs is something that simply sometimes happens in nature, they just simply don't yet understand why. 

20

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Should cannabis legalization allow cultivation for your own use?

« on: 15/07/2016 17:31:26 »

no one has ever died as a result of ingesting too much [cannabis]

 
That is a bold statement.

It is known that people who try to drive a vehicle after ingesting cannabis show severely impaired control of the vehicle. So I am sure that it would have killed someone, somewhere.

Fortunately, I understand that the soporific effects of the drug discourages cannabis users from trying to drive a vehicle immediately.

I believe this claim can be true if modified to something along the lines of "cannabis has such a high LD50 that there have never been any deaths as a direct result of toxicity associated with overdose"

Obviously, people who are high out of their minds can do things that may pose a danger to themselves or others (especially when vehicles, guns, or chainsaws are involved...)

Yes, that modified statement is exactly what I meant.

In no way would I recommend going for a cruise on the freeway after getting stoned out of your mind on some really good kind bud...