There's usually no need to spend so much on the motherboard. The motherboard doesn't really contribute to the gaming performance, so a mid-level board from one of the good brands (Asus, MSI, Gigabyte) is probably good enough.
While you may get slightly higher out-of-the-box clock speeds with the i7 CPUs, a high-end i5 gives better bang for the buck in gaming, as the main difference between i5 and i7 series is Hyper-Threading support in the latter series, and Hyper-Threading doesn't usually increase gaming performance (and some games actually suffer from Hyper-Threading). The CPU performance isn't very critical, as the gaming performance comes mostly from the graphics card, at least in graphics-intensive games and with high resolutions. In general, the graphics card should be the most expensive component in a gaming build, and by a good margin.
It seems that very few games gain anything from more than 8 Gb of RAM. A higher amount of RAM doesn't hurt, of course, but it can be wasted money if the budget is more limited than $2000.
There are very few setups with a single graphics card that won't run with a good 500 W PSU. For example, a computer with a new i5 or i7 CPU and for example GTX 980 will use a bit over 300 W tops under heavy loads (you can find measured power consumption figures in card reviews).
Good cases can be bought for a lot less than $150. Of course, looks are worth taking into consideration, as the case is what you'll actually be looking at.
- If you can produce plutonium, you can produce tritium (in fact, you'll produce tritium in any water-cooled reactor).
- The relative amounts of Pu-239 and Pu-240 is a function of burn time. If you have a nuclear reactor, you can control the burn time, producing the isotope mix you prefer. Pu-239 doesn't need to be enriched with centrifuges or other methods like U-235.
- If you don't have plutonium production capability, but can get enough plutonium to make a bomb, getting tritium is trivial. Tritium has been widely used, and for example missing exit signs generate a large portion of NRC's "missing radioactive material" alerts.
- Pu-240 was discussed above. Its presence in large concentrations complicate bomb design because of its high spontaneous fission rate and shorter half-life compared to Pu-239.
- All explosives have impurities. A uranium-based nuclear bomb is not 100 % U-235, it's enriched to somewhere around 90 % U-235. A block of TNT is not 100 % trinitrotoluene, there are impurities too. The impurities sometimes contribute to the outcome, but in nuclear weapons, it's the U-235 or Pu-239 that's brought to critical density condition to make the explosion possible.
- Working nuclear weapons have been designed without D-T boosting; in fact, no nuclear weapons program to date has began with such a boosted design. The boosting is a complication from engineering point of view.
- It's access to weapons-grade uranium or plutonium that's the problem from proliferation point of view. If you have working nuclear plants, like Japan does, access to tritium is a trivial addition.
Pu-240 isn't used for nuclear weapons, though. The isotope for bombs is Pu-239, with a critical mass of ~10 kg. The spontaneous fission rate for Pu-240 is much higher than for Pu-239 (about 30000 times as high), and it's also more highly radioactive, leading to additional problems with keeping the bomb cool before detonation.
The critical mass isn't that important in "normal" bomb designs. For example, Little Boy and Fat Man weighed about 4500 kg (the former being a couple hundred kg lighter), so a difference of a few tens of kg in the critical mass is negligible when compared to the total bomb mass. However, if you are aiming at the smallest possible physical bomb size, plutonium has a big advantage. Compare two actual weapons with ~1 kt yields, W33 and W54. The former is a gun-type uranium device, weighing something like 110-120 kg, based on the estimates I've seen, and it's an artillery shell with a base diameter of 20 cm and length of roughly 70 cm. The latter is a miniature plutonium implosion device with a weight of 23 kg and a diameter 27 cm.
Reading the press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/10/23Apple-Introduces-Next-Generation-iWork-and-iLife-Apps-for-OS-X-and-iOS.html), I'd guess you need to be running Mavericks to get the free versions.
Read the relevant article. Also, if they are already giving away the latest iWork and iLife suites, what's the point of having some of your users with older and possibly vulnerable versions?
What's the problem? iWork and iLife suites are free now. Or do you mean Aperture?
Re:All scientific conclusions should be questioned
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 2
No, the AC set up a straw man in his "experiment". It ignores the higher thermal capacity and lower heat conductivity of humid air compared to dry air, for starters. He may have a PhD in physics (so do I), but that doesn't excuse him from the fact that CO2 has been shown to be a greenhouse gas.
Equipment that would join an unknown network without any user interaction at all?
Yes. You seem to be pretty out-of-date in normal laptop and other WiFi-enabled systems.
there's no such commercial products that'll crack WEP without user configuration
Sure there are, but the people selling them aren't exactly going to advertise them in your local store.
I thought putting up a disclaimer (as there are "commercial" products for pretty much everything), but I thought that it was clear from the context. Your OEM laptop will not crack WEP out-of-the-box.
Having a laptop open in your car does that, it's nothing special. My ages-old iBook would connect to any open WiFi network, were I using the default settings. Picking up an unencrypted connection is trivial, whether by purpose or by accident; connecting to a WEP-encrypted WiFi network requires some specific effort. You are building up some ridiculous straw-man here: There's a lot of equipment that will connect to any open WiFi network in out-of-the-box configuration, but there's no such commercial products that'll crack WEP without user configuration.
The collision energies are ~10 % of LHC's. The benefit of a linear collider is that leptons like electrons and positrons can be used, making the analysis of the collisions simpler.
You've yet to show that Krauss holds that view. Abolishment through education (as higher education correlates with less belief in sky-fairies) seems to be what he advocates.
Huh? He want's it labelled child abuse.
No. He wants religious indoctrination of children to be labeled as child abuse. That is not equal to criminalizing religion.
It's also a blatant fallacy that "higher education correlates with less creation". In fact the opposite is true if a person pursues an education in Philosophy.
So, you couldn't find anyone giving those odds? Winning in lottery is a true/false question, how can anyone set those odds as anything different than 50/50? This is something that you seemingly fail to grasp.
Wrong, maybe you should go back and take a basic statistics class. Either that, or you need to stop twisting facts to support your beliefs, which would be the most advisable course of action.
But that's what you claim: The existence of a creator is a 50/50 chance situation, with nothing possibly skewing those odds to either direction. You just can't see how taking that stance in the lottery analogy leads to an absurdity. I'm not twisting any facts. I just find your unsupported 50/50 claim ludicrous, and tried to show how a true/false situation can mean anything but 50/50 odds.
The experiment comes from Philosophy first!
I don't really agree with this. The ancient Greek philosophers got several things wrong, when they didn't do the experiments they could have done.
You have a concept of something, you build a model to see if you are correct. The concept and thought process allowing you to build the experiment is Philosophy.
And that specific philosophy is called science. Philosophy in general lacks the self-correcting feedback that science has between the experiment and the theory. But, a theory begins with observations; usually such observations that aren't explained by existing theories.
I'm doubtful that you have a PHD.
Not my problem. My credentials are verifiable, but I'll prefer anonymity, as I don't try to make it an argument from authority. While you are on your trip to visit the cosmologist, find a couple of experimentalists and ask your philosophy question.
Einstein was not too happy about how Science was used against Japan either was he?
And? Science doesn't provide moral guidance in this sense. Though I'd like to know Einstein's view on atom bomb vs. invasion of the Japanese main islands, as the latter had a lot higher projected death toll.
We have found giant skeletons, which means that David and Goliath is very possible.
:D You do know that the giant skeleton was a hoax?
We have found all kinds of validation that a major world wide flood happened, so it is possible that this event occurred.
No. We have found evidence of local floods, but no evidence for a global one. And there isn't enough water on earth for a biblical flood.
Parting the Red Sea has been shown to have some merit with natural phenomenon, so while it may not have been a guy with a staff it could have happened.
Wind driving the water off from such a large area is a stretch, and it hasn't been demonstrated in reality. But yeah, I'll grant that it's not entirely impossible. The problem then is that you are trying to use a natural phenomenon as evidence for the supernatural.
While I don't doubt that you can find people with extreme views such as abolishment of religion, that's not what atheists in general demand. The demand is to keep the beliefs inside the believers and out of the society.
Were we not discussing Krauss that has just such a view? Randomly poll atheists and see how many agree with him, and don't see their belief as hypocritical.
You've yet to show that Krauss holds that view. Abolishment through education (as higher education correlates with less belief in sky-fairies) seems to be what he advocates.
And yet you can't give an example of your 50/50 claim. Not that it matters, philosophy is pretty worthless in evaluating claims of existence.
It becomes rather pointless to establish a different ratio when we know we can never prove either side is correct. It's a true or false question. How does any rational person set the odds any other way?
So, you couldn't find anyone giving those odds? Winning in lottery is a true/false question, how can anyone set those odds as anything different than 50/50? This is something that you seemingly fail to grasp.
The second half of that is absolute rubbish! Every scientific theory starts with a Philosophical evaluation! Every single one! Why do you think most scientists have PHDs? You do know what PHD is an acronym for don't you?
As a PhD, I'll have to inform that you are wrong. Every scientific theory begins with experimental data. This is why, say, the ancient Greeks theorizing about atoms didn't produce anything usable.
I've often wondered, how many of those people would have believed in a god, had they not been indoctrinated during their childhood (I don't claim that all of them were). I have hard time believing that anyone would come up with the Christian God and dogma (virgin birth and such) just starting from first principles and working in vacuum.
You are showing a great amount of ignorance of history here. Read up on Sumeria and Ancient Greek beliefs. It's not difficult to come up with any modern religion based on previous beliefs.
That's part of my point. The religious dogma seems like fairy-tales built on older fairy-tales. I did say "in vacuum", i. e. working without knowledge of the current and past religions.
Much of what is in the Judea Christian old testament seems to have some truth to the shape of the world also. If some does, perhaps you have been fooled into thinking there is no truth in anything except for what you have been taught to believe?
Much of the Old Testament is factually wrong or pretty hideous stuff morally. I don't know about truth, but science has been the only tool to give us something usable.
Einstein did believe in a creator, but was not a practicing Jew and did not believe what most Religions did or taught about the creator. You do realize that all of his writings are on the Smithsonian web site and translated to English, so you could easily check facts for yourself right?
So show me wrong with actual quotes.
How can you possibly agree with a disproportional set of conflicting information?
What conflicting information? We have talked about inaccuracy in measurements of parameters, like the age of the universe.
I'm not trying to claim the theories are bad, but pointing out the fact that there are numerous theories of the same name and none of them are the same. To claim BB is right means you have never read on what BB is.
I haven't claimed that BB theory is right, as no theory is ever right. They can only shown to be wrong; until that happens, the prevailing theories are our best models to match the universe we observe. Did you read the Scienceblogs page I linked to? Where were the numerous BB theori
You would probably not argue that a Muslim demanding everyone believes and worships as they do, or they suffer criminal penalties is wrong. Why is it okay for an atheist to do the same? I call that hypocrisy.
While I don't doubt that you can find people with extreme views such as abolishment of religion, that's not what atheists in general demand. The demand is to keep the beliefs inside the believers and out of the society.
I have studied Philosophy and countless Philosophers for over 30 years.
And yet you can't give an example of your 50/50 claim. Not that it matters, philosophy is pretty worthless in evaluating claims of existence.
Move to Descartes, Aquinas, and even many people we don't call "Philosophers" such as Newton, Godel, and even Einstein.
I've often wondered, how many of those people would have believed in a god, had they not been indoctrinated during their childhood (I don't claim that all of them were). I have hard time believing that anyone would come up with the Christian God and dogma (virgin birth and such) just starting from first principles and working in vacuum. Additionally, Einstein was a pantheist, he didn't believe in a creator god.
Unfortunately, showing you that different places having different facts in the same theories does no good. I will admit that I don't know everything, but you refuse to admit that you are wrong even when shown facts. If there was some magic book of the Universe, there would be one set of facts that everyone pointed to. There is no such book, and scientists can't agree on numerous portions of the Big Bang.
You still haven't shown a single disagreement. You just don't get it: That two popular sources cite somewhat different numbers does not mean that there are two different Big Bang theories. The theory is the framework that ties the parameters together in a consistent way. For example, in BB theory, the size of the universe is tied to the age of the universe. The size of the universe is also tied to the Hubble constant. If we measure the Hubble constant with say 20 % accuracy, we get an estimate for the age of the universe that's 20 % or more inaccurate. This inaccuracy in determination of parameters has as just little to do with correctness of the BB theory than inaccuracy in the earth's circumstance measurements has to do with the theory of the spherical earth.
Simulations can use up to 90% dark matter and dark energy, yet there is no fixed properties for either. Just like there are no fixed property for the age of the Universe, what exactly blew up at the beginning, or even how much stuff existed.
Yes, yes, there are different parameters in the BB theory. Using two different sets of parameters doesn't produce two different theories. If you use two different masses for the earth and the moon to model the earth-moon system with Newtonian gravity, you don't produce two different theories of Newtonian gravity.
The only thing that is agreeable is the speed at which the Universe is expanding because we can't argue measured speeds. There are still scientists today that are working on determining if the rate is slowing down
The measurements indicate that the rate is increasing. Speeding, slowing down, doesn't matter from the theory point of view, because using different parameters in the BB theory produces those scenarios. By ever-increasingly accurate measurements we can determine those parameters.
because it's required with a mass inflation scenario.
What "mass inflation" scenario? Please explain how mass and inflation are connected. It is clear that while you may have read about some of these things, you haven't really understood what you have read.
All you have to do is read and you will see that very few people agree on some pretty major facts
No, belief in a creator is not like winning the lottery. It's a pure true/false question. We know the Universe began somehow. Atheists believe in no deity and claim that a Universe can just spring up from nothing. A creationist believes that something must have caused it to begin. Observation dictates that the creationist is probably correct.
You are missing a lot of possibilities here. What if the universe (or multiverse, or whatever you wish to call it) has always existed, and our observable universe began from a phase change in that larger entity about 13.8 billion years ago? Or, we are are a 3+1-dimensional brane in a higher-dimensional multiverse?
Why? 1. Observe the Universe and everything has a cause and effect.
Already wrong at this point. Say, an uranium atom decays just now. What made that happen at that precise moment? Nothing.
2. If a Universe could just pop up from nothing what has prevented numerous additional Universes from popping up within ours,
Why would those universes have to pop up within our universe? If our universe sprang up from something in a higher vacuum state dropping to its ground state, that could have happened many times, with the other universes being outside ours? Or, as scientists like Stephen Hawking have at some point surmised, what if our black holes give birth to other universes, which create their own space-times?
Because there is no proof, and no way of proving the answer to the question Philosophers through history have given it a 50/50 shot.
Not any philosophers I'm aware of. Perhaps you could provide some references.
Most atheists, yourself obviously included, dismiss the creator question because of Religious teaching, not because the question has been invalidated by any science. The question is still a very valid, and as mentioned previously it's an extremely healthy question to try and solve.
No, I don't dismiss it. I dismiss any personal, interacting god. I dismiss any biblical and such creator gods, who create the universe in an already-evolved state. A creator who just pushes the button, so to speak, and ends the interaction there, is an option that must be considered possible. For example, if our universe is a computer simulation, the entity who started the simulation would qualify as such a creator. However, I find this option rather disinteresting. How would you show that this is what really happened? I don't see a way, and we'll be stuck in a situation of "we don't know what happened". As long as science can hypothesize testable (at least in principle) theories of the beginning of the universe, that's the way to go.
As to this:
How laughable can you get? Your evidence is two popular accounts of a scientific theory? And the "U of M" site has its latest reference from 1995, do you think that Wiki might have a bit more up-to-date info?
No, the Wiki does not have the most up to date information for Big Bang. The age of the Universe by most cosmologists is closer to U of M's information than Wiki's information.
You really are banging on your ignorance of the subject. Who are these "most cosmologists", who claim that the universe is about 15 bn years old, instead of 13.8 or thereabouts. The latest data by the Planck probe gives the age as 13.8 bn years, and that was a minor surprise to most cosmologists, as that's some 80 million years higher than our previous-best data indicated. Read all about it here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/21/what-the-entire-universe-is-made-of-thanks-to-planck/
I can tell you that in elementary school in Michigan we were taught the Big Bang, as are most kids. In the decades that followed
Oh, and I definitely didn't mean that string theory should be taught as dogma. Stupid typo on my part, the part should be "as with anything dealing with science, it *shouldn't* be taught as dogma".
Are you calling steady state theory the same as big bang? Both were similar, but until the 80s there was a ton of push trying to determine when the Universe would start to contract because that was required due to the explosion in the Big Bang.
Yes, it really seems that you didn't read the article. For example, steady state theory doesn't explain the CMB, which was observed well before the 80s.
It was because the majority of Cosmologists believed that there was a ball of mass that blew up causing the Universe to begin to exist (and they don't mention how the mass came to exist, or the energy, or the space, or the physics) and for the most part in the Scientific community you were not allowed to discuss it.
Repeating your rubbish doesn't make it right. How about this: Go to your local university or look up their site for email contact info, find an astronomer or a cosmologist, and ask his/her view on this.
If you did, you were shunned and labelled a "Creationist".
So you think that for example string theorists are/were labelled as creationists for proposing systems that would lead to a Big Bang?
Now compare the Wiki with U of M, and see where the same theory can easily contradict itself. As a quick pointer, U of M has the Universe at 15+ billion years, Wiki at 13.
How laughable can you get? Your evidence is two popular accounts of a scientific theory? And the "U of M" site has its latest reference from 1995, do you think that Wiki might have a bit more up-to-date info?
Belief in a creator is a 50/50 shot.
:D This one is a gem. Sure, like winning lottery is a 50/50 shot. You either win, or you don't.
I gave no false facts. The BB theory by Gamow's concept was a ball of mass exploding which matches what I stated.
Oops, you did it again. An explosion would require pre-existing space. The explosion description is only an analogy.
It also does not change the _fact_ that there are numerous different competing BB theories. Size of mass, energy required, age of the Universe are all different.
You seem to be very confused about what a theory means. I'll give you an analogy: At a time when we didn't have very exact measurements of the speed of light in vacuum, your absurd definition of a theory would mean that there's an infinity of Einsteinian theories of relativity. One has the speed of light value of 299 792 458 m/s, another 299 792 458.1 m/s. That's just plain rubbish. There's one special and one general theory of relativity, with the parameter values we have measured. Other parameter values are ruled out the measurements.
BB was proven to be a rather funny joke, which is why it had to adopt EV theories to remain relevant.
Show me where this was proven. And again, no-one using the abbreviation "EV" should tell you something.
Let me guess, you never looked at the U of M web site did you?
WTF? I even gave you a link to what I think you mean by the U of M site. If it's not the correct, please provide an actual reference.
And while I'm not a cosmologist or an astronomer, I'd say I have a reasonable understanding of the BB theory and its history. Heck, reading about cosmology some 18 years ago was the main reason for me to start studying physics a few years later, and I still closely follow the area of research.
Kraus not demanding a punishment does not change the fact that he want's the teaching of specific subject matter illegal.
Please provide references. In secular countries the US, teaching religion in this sense in schools is already illegal. But I'd like you to show me where he demands that parents indoctrinating their children with a religion should be made illegal instead of it being morally wrong.
Further, you calling your children names has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of teaching them to answer to question creation.
I'm not sure where you got this part, but for once, you are right. Teaching critical thinking is not indoctrination, though.
Teaching them to think about a theory is not a harmful act, calling names or hitting them is, or at least has greater potential.
You are missing the part about teaching them to believe and not question a fairy tale.
If you want to claim "Religion is not proven" then the same punishment should be proper for teaching them Big Bang or EV theory.
Rubbish. Telling children that a fairy tale is true is not comparable to presenting the current scientific knowledge.
They are all theories.
Religion is not a theory, it's fantasy.
Do you support punishing parents for teaching their kids String theory too?
Well, String Theories have at least some hope of being correct. But, as with anything dealing with science, it should be taught as dogma. You are once again building a straw man, as I've nowhere demanded punishing parents for teaching religious rubbish to their children.
Stalin used Marxist theories, and condemned Religious people to death.
Stalin condemned a big lot of non-religious communists to death, too, while there remained persons in the USSR who were not condemned to death. To blame atheism for the acts done in building up a person cult and a dictatorship is ignorance of historical facts.
The point of the examples of Catholicism are that you can't blame Religion for shitty things people
There were several factual errors, starting from your revisionist claims of BB theory, which I showed wrong. Buy the G. Gamow's book I mentioned, or better yet, find Gamow's BB nucleosynthesis article from 1948 (that's before event there was the rather misleading name "Big Bang theory").
If I claim that you must believe like me, then I'm a horrible Religious person correct?
Well, pretty much so. Show me the evidence for your argument, which have absolutely refused to do.
So Krauss does this as an atheist, and it's not just as horrible?
Krauss bases his view on what we can observe (in the scientific sense, in a repeatable way), and speculates on what we can possibly extrapolate from that data. Any religious view can't do that. And yet, the scientific views like Krauss's doesn't say you *must* believe like me, it's rather that you should look at the evidence (or lack of it) we have, and draw your own conclusions, not cram it down your children's throats.
Krauss with his specific beliefs requiring the punishment of anyone that digs for the prime question and comes to a conclusion different than his.
Again, show me where he requires punishment for that. You don't say what your *prime question* is, but I'd guess it has something to do with the beginning of the universe, and Krauss along with others is actually helping a new generation or two to get some handle in perhaps digging into those issues.
What is the punishment for Child abuse? Now you are nitpicking and not making sense at all. In addition to removal of children from custody, it's a felony. Duration for imprisonment depends on the State as well as the Judicial system (Jury, Judges, Lawyers, etc...). If I say "atheists should be charged as murders" it won't mean anything if I don't say "and they should go to jail for X years!"? Sorry, it does not work that way in any language.
Common misunderstanding in these issues, in your part, that is. If I abuse my children by calling them bastards every now and them, while otherwise keeping good care of them, it's not a punishable offence. You just don't want understand underlying issues that may affect the development of a child if he, say, has to always be afraid of going to hell if he does one bad thing.
That does not follow at all. The laws in my country say that hard drugs like heroin are illegal, and I wouldn't be a criminal by determining that hard drugs are necessary for people.
Did you decide that someone believing that there is a creator is as harmful to society as feeding a child heroin.
And you didn't get it. In the example, I would be just expressing my opinion that heroin is good for you, not feeding or injecting anyone with heroin.
Stop blaming fucked up people on Religion, it's absolute rubbish!
Where did I do that?
The two biggest mass murders in history committed their atrocities for power and were atheists. In the process, they deemed it necessary to kill anyone of any Religion. Does that mean that every atheist in the world is as fucked up as Mao and Stalin? Obviously the answer is "no".
Where did Hitler go? Oh, he was shown to have deep religious connections. I'd guess Stalin is the next one to drop off the list with his religious training... Where is the Pope on your list? The body count in Africa is getting pretty good with the prevention of condom usage. Or the Christian God, the worst murderer of all times (at least for the Christians): He invented death.
If the Catholic Church doctrine told their followers to be pedophiles, would they have done so?
I have no idea of how we got from your atheist bashing and BB theory misconceptions to this point, but very well... Would you end
And still no acknowledgements of the factual errors you have presented...
And Krauss also claims that anyone teaching any Religion to a child should be jailed for Child abuse.
Provide quotation for the requirement of jailing the parents. Saying that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse doesn't mean claiming that the parents should be jailed for that.
So people that look for the answer, and determine that there needs to be a creator are criminals to him.
That does not follow at all. The laws in my country say that hard drugs like heroin are illegal, and I wouldn't be a criminal by determining that hard drugs are necessary for people.
People are taught not to look for the beginning of all things.
OK, please show where this happens in science and atheism. It's pure rubbish, even Krauss, who you so eager to put down, has published a book that clearly establishes the fact that we don't know what happened at the beginning or even if there really was a beginning per se at all, and then goes on to present some of his views on the subject.
You nicely ignore the points showing that you are factually wrong.
Who are paid to claim those things? The vocal atheists are saying that in light of the evidence (or lack of it), it seems very unlikely that there is a god or gods, and that we have a framework which does a god job in explaining what we see about our universe at the moment.
Did you even bother to listen to any of the 5-10 minute segments with Larry Kraus in them? Kraus is not the best person to publicly speak on the EV theory, yet he does and gets paid a lot of money to do so.
Why don't you quote what you actually claimed? Krauss does not say that we are 100 % certain that there isn't a creator and so on, he says that a) we can build hypotheses that don't require a creator, and b) we have no evidence of such an entity. Thus a creator is an unlikely hypothesis.
If you watch his segments and see him using ad hominem against Religion,
It's not an ad hominem when the religion's (Christianity I'd guess) holy book exactly describes a bully god. It's not an ad hominem to attack an idea.
should you not wonder if that's why he's getting paid assloads of money to speak on EVs behalf? He gets book promotions, as do many others that denounce all Religion
People pay public speakers, was that news to you? And drop the "EV" junk.
and push atheism in science.
Science by definition doesn't recognize anything supernatural, including gods.
Government grant's go to papers that denounce a creator while similar work gets nothing.
Well, can you show some scientific work and results done by creationists? The ID folk have tried and tried, and nothing has come out of it. Rubbish like irreducible complexity has been presented, and shown wrong.
There's plenty of private parties like the Templeton Foundation with money to spare on non-scientific studies.
I know you messed up the quote, no biggie. From that statement however, it is clearly you that are ignorant. Search for the Big Bang and you will find numerous competing theories.
Well, I'm a physicist (in a different field), and I don't think that anyone I know who's working in a related area would agree with you. Why don't you present some of those competing theories that have passed peer review?
U of M's web site has some of the history. The U of M web site calls "EV" theory "Big Bang".
That your source doesn't recognize your "EV" should tell you something. Googling for "U of M big bang" produces this: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm There's nothing to support your claims there. If you are talking about some other site, please give the reference.
There was a massive publication in the last year that claimed that the Ball of mass that blew up must have been 270million light years in diameter.
Where? What ball of mass? And what's a "massive publication"? There are always fringe hypotheses that may even get published in decent journals, but data is what sorts the incorrect ones out (see below).
So the Big Bang still depends on who you care to believe. Some date the Universe at 13billion years old, others as much as 19 billion,
Read up on the research. The Planck probe gives our best estimate for the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, and Planck is working at a resolution level that won't get better by improving the detection system. Anything claiming the age to be much more than that is excluded by the data, unless a non-BB universe is proposed too.
Absolutely, that's kind of how science and math works.
I have to say I got a laugh out of this. Bundling math with science in terms of theories is ridiculous; unlike science, in math you have proofs.
These questions show that you know very little about the Big Bang (BB) theories. First one: There was no ball of mass. The current prevailing inflationary BB theories suggest that after a period of exponential expansion, the observable universe was formed from the energy released from the inflation field in a phase change, giving rise to a high energy state. Second question is basically just a rephrasing of the first one.
That is not the Big Bang theory in earnest, that is the Expanding Vacuum theory. The Big Bang was so fucked up and easily disproved, that they adopted the EV theory and claim that they never said there was an exploding ball of mass. Revisionist bullshit, go read a book on the Big Bang written any time in the 1900s.
You simply don't know what you are talking about here. For example, George Gamow describes the essentials of current Big Bang theory in his textbook The Creation of the Universe, written in semi-popular style in 1952, only 3 years after the term Big Bang was coined. The book doesn't include inflation, which came later to explain the smoothness of the high-energy state, and it has some specific details wrong, like the estimate for the CMB temperature is an order of magnitude too high, as at the time the estimate for the age of the universe was an order of magnitude low, and the two are inversely proportional.
Rubbish. Produce the exact quote in context.
My 9 year old Nephew has no trouble using Google and finding videos on Youtube, why can't you? He is easy to find since he's been on dozens of nationally broadcast TV shows like "The Colbert Report", "The Daily Show" and more. In addition to numerous taped presentations at Universities and other public places.
Google finds zero hits for that quote. I know Lawrence Krauss, and I even own some of his books. The context is important here; so what if a physicist doesn't want to speculate about multiverse and eternal inflation scenarios to answer questions that we don't know answers for, possibly in some popular interview, and instead answer with a flippant remark? What he says is: "I don't know, but we have some hypotheses that don't require the God of the Old Testament to create the universe."
Again, rubbish. The scientific position is that as we have no theory extending to the beginning of our universe, the question is unanswerable. If there is some sort of a specific beginning or a cause, it could be eternal inflation, a guy starting up his computer universe simulator, or Odin. We have no way of differentiating between those options.
If that were true, then people would not be being paid to claim that there is no God, no Creator, and that the Big Bang and EV theories are all you need to know! I can see that even when propaganda is spelled out for you, you refuse to believe it exists. I can't fix your mental deficiency, I can only point it out.
Who are paid to claim those things? The vocal atheists are saying that in light of the evidence (or lack of it), it seems very unlikely that there is a god or gods, and that we have a framework which does a god job in explaining what we see about our universe at the moment.
No. Anyone asking the question *within BB theory* is ignorant of the theory, in the same way that someone asking about the origin of life on Earth with the theory of evolution is ignorant of the theory.
Which Big Bang theory are you claiming to be true? There are dozens. Use "Google", as mentioned previously a 9 year old can do it so you can as well. Also, stay on topic. This is something else my 9 year old nephew has no issues with.
Again, to claim that there are several BB theories shows ignorance of the subject. High-energy initial state, nucleosynthesis for the light elements, expansion and cooling down, formatio
This is going to hurt, but I feel the same way about atheism. Atheists are taught that the Universe could just happen, contrary to what we know and observe everywhere else in the Universe.
You already go wrong here. For example virtual particles just "happen", without anything in particular making them appear at this particular moment.
Everything we see and observe has a cause, yet when it comes to the most important event we could discuss you can't ask "where the ball of mass came from for the big bang and how did physics already exist?" or "how did a vacuum just appear with mass, energy, and physics already inside?".
These questions show that you know very little about the Big Bang (BB) theories. First one: There was no ball of mass. The current prevailing inflationary BB theories suggest that after a period of exponential expansion, the observable universe was formed from the energy released from the inflation field in a phase change, giving rise to a high energy state. Second question is basically just a rephrasing of the first one.
The answer from the top atheist propagandist, Lawrence Kraus, is immediately "I don't need some bully in the sky to make the Universe." What? That does not change or answer the questions!
Rubbish. Produce the exact quote in context.
Most atheists are brainwashed into thinking that if they ask about the beginning of the Universe, they are ignorant.
Again, rubbish. The scientific position is that as we have no theory extending to the beginning of our universe, the question is unanswerable. If there is some sort of a specific beginning or a cause, it could be eternal inflation, a guy starting up his computer universe simulator, or Odin. We have no way of differentiating between those options.
Worse, they are taught that anyone asking the question is ignorant.
No. Anyone asking the question *within BB theory* is ignorant of the theory, in the same way that someone asking about the origin of life on Earth with the theory of evolution is ignorant of the theory.
The rest of your post is just you banging on your straw man.
Slashdot Mirror
There's usually no need to spend so much on the motherboard. The motherboard doesn't really contribute to the gaming performance, so a mid-level board from one of the good brands (Asus, MSI, Gigabyte) is probably good enough.
While you may get slightly higher out-of-the-box clock speeds with the i7 CPUs, a high-end i5 gives better bang for the buck in gaming, as the main difference between i5 and i7 series is Hyper-Threading support in the latter series, and Hyper-Threading doesn't usually increase gaming performance (and some games actually suffer from Hyper-Threading). The CPU performance isn't very critical, as the gaming performance comes mostly from the graphics card, at least in graphics-intensive games and with high resolutions. In general, the graphics card should be the most expensive component in a gaming build, and by a good margin.
It seems that very few games gain anything from more than 8 Gb of RAM. A higher amount of RAM doesn't hurt, of course, but it can be wasted money if the budget is more limited than $2000.
There are very few setups with a single graphics card that won't run with a good 500 W PSU. For example, a computer with a new i5 or i7 CPU and for example GTX 980 will use a bit over 300 W tops under heavy loads (you can find measured power consumption figures in card reviews).
Good cases can be bought for a lot less than $150. Of course, looks are worth taking into consideration, as the case is what you'll actually be looking at.
Again, you have no point:
- If you can produce plutonium, you can produce tritium (in fact, you'll produce tritium in any water-cooled reactor).
- The relative amounts of Pu-239 and Pu-240 is a function of burn time. If you have a nuclear reactor, you can control the burn time, producing the isotope mix you prefer. Pu-239 doesn't need to be enriched with centrifuges or other methods like U-235.
- If you don't have plutonium production capability, but can get enough plutonium to make a bomb, getting tritium is trivial. Tritium has been widely used, and for example missing exit signs generate a large portion of NRC's "missing radioactive material" alerts.
- Pu-240 was discussed above. Its presence in large concentrations complicate bomb design because of its high spontaneous fission rate and shorter half-life compared to Pu-239.
I fail to see any point in your reply:
- All explosives have impurities. A uranium-based nuclear bomb is not 100 % U-235, it's enriched to somewhere around 90 % U-235. A block of TNT is not 100 % trinitrotoluene, there are impurities too. The impurities sometimes contribute to the outcome, but in nuclear weapons, it's the U-235 or Pu-239 that's brought to critical density condition to make the explosion possible.
- Working nuclear weapons have been designed without D-T boosting; in fact, no nuclear weapons program to date has began with such a boosted design. The boosting is a complication from engineering point of view.
- It's access to weapons-grade uranium or plutonium that's the problem from proliferation point of view. If you have working nuclear plants, like Japan does, access to tritium is a trivial addition.
Pu-240 isn't used for nuclear weapons, though. The isotope for bombs is Pu-239, with a critical mass of ~10 kg. The spontaneous fission rate for Pu-240 is much higher than for Pu-239 (about 30000 times as high), and it's also more highly radioactive, leading to additional problems with keeping the bomb cool before detonation.
The critical mass isn't that important in "normal" bomb designs. For example, Little Boy and Fat Man weighed about 4500 kg (the former being a couple hundred kg lighter), so a difference of a few tens of kg in the critical mass is negligible when compared to the total bomb mass. However, if you are aiming at the smallest possible physical bomb size, plutonium has a big advantage. Compare two actual weapons with ~1 kt yields, W33 and W54. The former is a gun-type uranium device, weighing something like 110-120 kg, based on the estimates I've seen, and it's an artillery shell with a base diameter of 20 cm and length of roughly 70 cm. The latter is a miniature plutonium implosion device with a weight of 23 kg and a diameter 27 cm.
Reading the press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/10/23Apple-Introduces-Next-Generation-iWork-and-iLife-Apps-for-OS-X-and-iOS.html), I'd guess you need to be running Mavericks to get the free versions.
Read the relevant article. Also, if they are already giving away the latest iWork and iLife suites, what's the point of having some of your users with older and possibly vulnerable versions?
What's the problem? iWork and iLife suites are free now. Or do you mean Aperture?
No, the AC set up a straw man in his "experiment". It ignores the higher thermal capacity and lower heat conductivity of humid air compared to dry air, for starters. He may have a PhD in physics (so do I), but that doesn't excuse him from the fact that CO2 has been shown to be a greenhouse gas.
Equipment that would join an unknown network without any user interaction at all?
Yes. You seem to be pretty out-of-date in normal laptop and other WiFi-enabled systems.
there's no such commercial products that'll crack WEP without user configuration
Sure there are, but the people selling them aren't exactly going to advertise them in your local store.
I thought putting up a disclaimer (as there are "commercial" products for pretty much everything), but I thought that it was clear from the context. Your OEM laptop will not crack WEP out-of-the-box.
Having a laptop open in your car does that, it's nothing special. My ages-old iBook would connect to any open WiFi network, were I using the default settings. Picking up an unencrypted connection is trivial, whether by purpose or by accident; connecting to a WEP-encrypted WiFi network requires some specific effort. You are building up some ridiculous straw-man here: There's a lot of equipment that will connect to any open WiFi network in out-of-the-box configuration, but there's no such commercial products that'll crack WEP without user configuration.
The collision energies are ~10 % of LHC's. The benefit of a linear collider is that leptons like electrons and positrons can be used, making the analysis of the collisions simpler.
You've yet to show that Krauss holds that view. Abolishment through education (as higher education correlates with less belief in sky-fairies) seems to be what he advocates.
Huh? He want's it labelled child abuse.
No. He wants religious indoctrination of children to be labeled as child abuse. That is not equal to criminalizing religion.
It's also a blatant fallacy that "higher education correlates with less creation". In fact the opposite is true if a person pursues an education in Philosophy.
Wrong. 72.8 % of philosophers being atheists is much, much higher than the average in the US. Link to a very recent study: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-do-philosophers-believe/
So, you couldn't find anyone giving those odds? Winning in lottery is a true/false question, how can anyone set those odds as anything different than 50/50? This is something that you seemingly fail to grasp.
Wrong, maybe you should go back and take a basic statistics class. Either that, or you need to stop twisting facts to support your beliefs, which would be the most advisable course of action.
But that's what you claim: The existence of a creator is a 50/50 chance situation, with nothing possibly skewing those odds to either direction. You just can't see how taking that stance in the lottery analogy leads to an absurdity. I'm not twisting any facts. I just find your unsupported 50/50 claim ludicrous, and tried to show how a true/false situation can mean anything but 50/50 odds.
The experiment comes from Philosophy first!
I don't really agree with this. The ancient Greek philosophers got several things wrong, when they didn't do the experiments they could have done.
You have a concept of something, you build a model to see if you are correct. The concept and thought process allowing you to build the experiment is Philosophy.
And that specific philosophy is called science. Philosophy in general lacks the self-correcting feedback that science has between the experiment and the theory. But, a theory begins with observations; usually such observations that aren't explained by existing theories.
I'm doubtful that you have a PHD.
Not my problem. My credentials are verifiable, but I'll prefer anonymity, as I don't try to make it an argument from authority. While you are on your trip to visit the cosmologist, find a couple of experimentalists and ask your philosophy question.
Einstein was not too happy about how Science was used against Japan either was he?
And? Science doesn't provide moral guidance in this sense. Though I'd like to know Einstein's view on atom bomb vs. invasion of the Japanese main islands, as the latter had a lot higher projected death toll.
We have found giant skeletons, which means that David and Goliath is very possible.
:D You do know that the giant skeleton was a hoax?
We have found all kinds of validation that a major world wide flood happened, so it is possible that this event occurred.
No. We have found evidence of local floods, but no evidence for a global one. And there isn't enough water on earth for a biblical flood.
Parting the Red Sea has been shown to have some merit with natural phenomenon, so while it may not have been a guy with a staff it could have happened.
Wind driving the water off from such a large area is a stretch, and it hasn't been demonstrated in reality. But yeah, I'll grant that it's not entirely impossible. The problem then is that you are trying to use a natural phenomenon as evidence for the supernatural.
While I don't doubt that you can find people with extreme views such as abolishment of religion, that's not what atheists in general demand. The demand is to keep the beliefs inside the believers and out of the society.
Were we not discussing Krauss that has just such a view? Randomly poll atheists and see how many agree with him, and don't see their belief as hypocritical.
You've yet to show that Krauss holds that view. Abolishment through education (as higher education correlates with less belief in sky-fairies) seems to be what he advocates.
And yet you can't give an example of your 50/50 claim. Not that it matters, philosophy is pretty worthless in evaluating claims of existence.
It becomes rather pointless to establish a different ratio when we know we can never prove either side is correct. It's a true or false question. How does any rational person set the odds any other way?
So, you couldn't find anyone giving those odds? Winning in lottery is a true/false question, how can anyone set those odds as anything different than 50/50? This is something that you seemingly fail to grasp.
The second half of that is absolute rubbish! Every scientific theory starts with a Philosophical evaluation! Every single one! Why do you think most scientists have PHDs? You do know what PHD is an acronym for don't you?
As a PhD, I'll have to inform that you are wrong. Every scientific theory begins with experimental data. This is why, say, the ancient Greeks theorizing about atoms didn't produce anything usable.
I've often wondered, how many of those people would have believed in a god, had they not been indoctrinated during their childhood (I don't claim that all of them were). I have hard time believing that anyone would come up with the Christian God and dogma (virgin birth and such) just starting from first principles and working in vacuum.
You are showing a great amount of ignorance of history here. Read up on Sumeria and Ancient Greek beliefs. It's not difficult to come up with any modern religion based on previous beliefs.
That's part of my point. The religious dogma seems like fairy-tales built on older fairy-tales. I did say "in vacuum", i. e. working without knowledge of the current and past religions.
Much of what is in the Judea Christian old testament seems to have some truth to the shape of the world also. If some does, perhaps you have been fooled into thinking there is no truth in anything except for what you have been taught to believe?
Much of the Old Testament is factually wrong or pretty hideous stuff morally. I don't know about truth, but science has been the only tool to give us something usable.
Einstein did believe in a creator, but was not a practicing Jew and did not believe what most Religions did or taught about the creator. You do realize that all of his writings are on the Smithsonian web site and translated to English, so you could easily check facts for yourself right?
So show me wrong with actual quotes.
How can you possibly agree with a disproportional set of conflicting information?
What conflicting information? We have talked about inaccuracy in measurements of parameters, like the age of the universe.
I'm not trying to claim the theories are bad, but pointing out the fact that there are numerous theories of the same name and none of them are the same. To claim BB is right means you have never read on what BB is.
I haven't claimed that BB theory is right, as no theory is ever right. They can only shown to be wrong; until that happens, the prevailing theories are our best models to match the universe we observe. Did you read the Scienceblogs page I linked to? Where were the numerous BB theori
You would probably not argue that a Muslim demanding everyone believes and worships as they do, or they suffer criminal penalties is wrong. Why is it okay for an atheist to do the same? I call that hypocrisy.
While I don't doubt that you can find people with extreme views such as abolishment of religion, that's not what atheists in general demand. The demand is to keep the beliefs inside the believers and out of the society.
I have studied Philosophy and countless Philosophers for over 30 years.
And yet you can't give an example of your 50/50 claim. Not that it matters, philosophy is pretty worthless in evaluating claims of existence.
Move to Descartes, Aquinas, and even many people we don't call "Philosophers" such as Newton, Godel, and even Einstein.
I've often wondered, how many of those people would have believed in a god, had they not been indoctrinated during their childhood (I don't claim that all of them were). I have hard time believing that anyone would come up with the Christian God and dogma (virgin birth and such) just starting from first principles and working in vacuum. Additionally, Einstein was a pantheist, he didn't believe in a creator god.
Unfortunately, showing you that different places having different facts in the same theories does no good. I will admit that I don't know everything, but you refuse to admit that you are wrong even when shown facts. If there was some magic book of the Universe, there would be one set of facts that everyone pointed to. There is no such book, and scientists can't agree on numerous portions of the Big Bang.
You still haven't shown a single disagreement. You just don't get it: That two popular sources cite somewhat different numbers does not mean that there are two different Big Bang theories. The theory is the framework that ties the parameters together in a consistent way. For example, in BB theory, the size of the universe is tied to the age of the universe. The size of the universe is also tied to the Hubble constant. If we measure the Hubble constant with say 20 % accuracy, we get an estimate for the age of the universe that's 20 % or more inaccurate. This inaccuracy in determination of parameters has as just little to do with correctness of the BB theory than inaccuracy in the earth's circumstance measurements has to do with the theory of the spherical earth.
Simulations can use up to 90% dark matter and dark energy, yet there is no fixed properties for either. Just like there are no fixed property for the age of the Universe, what exactly blew up at the beginning, or even how much stuff existed.
Yes, yes, there are different parameters in the BB theory. Using two different sets of parameters doesn't produce two different theories. If you use two different masses for the earth and the moon to model the earth-moon system with Newtonian gravity, you don't produce two different theories of Newtonian gravity.
The only thing that is agreeable is the speed at which the Universe is expanding because we can't argue measured speeds. There are still scientists today that are working on determining if the rate is slowing down
The measurements indicate that the rate is increasing. Speeding, slowing down, doesn't matter from the theory point of view, because using different parameters in the BB theory produces those scenarios. By ever-increasingly accurate measurements we can determine those parameters.
because it's required with a mass inflation scenario.
What "mass inflation" scenario? Please explain how mass and inflation are connected. It is clear that while you may have read about some of these things, you haven't really understood what you have read.
All you have to do is read and you will see that very few people agree on some pretty major facts
No, belief in a creator is not like winning the lottery. It's a pure true/false question. We know the Universe began somehow. Atheists believe in no deity and claim that a Universe can just spring up from nothing. A creationist believes that something must have caused it to begin. Observation dictates that the creationist is probably correct.
You are missing a lot of possibilities here. What if the universe (or multiverse, or whatever you wish to call it) has always existed, and our observable universe began from a phase change in that larger entity about 13.8 billion years ago? Or, we are are a 3+1-dimensional brane in a higher-dimensional multiverse?
Why? 1. Observe the Universe and everything has a cause and effect.
Already wrong at this point. Say, an uranium atom decays just now. What made that happen at that precise moment? Nothing.
2. If a Universe could just pop up from nothing what has prevented numerous additional Universes from popping up within ours,
Why would those universes have to pop up within our universe? If our universe sprang up from something in a higher vacuum state dropping to its ground state, that could have happened many times, with the other universes being outside ours? Or, as scientists like Stephen Hawking have at some point surmised, what if our black holes give birth to other universes, which create their own space-times?
Because there is no proof, and no way of proving the answer to the question Philosophers through history have given it a 50/50 shot.
Not any philosophers I'm aware of. Perhaps you could provide some references.
Most atheists, yourself obviously included, dismiss the creator question because of Religious teaching, not because the question has been invalidated by any science. The question is still a very valid, and as mentioned previously it's an extremely healthy question to try and solve.
No, I don't dismiss it. I dismiss any personal, interacting god. I dismiss any biblical and such creator gods, who create the universe in an already-evolved state. A creator who just pushes the button, so to speak, and ends the interaction there, is an option that must be considered possible. For example, if our universe is a computer simulation, the entity who started the simulation would qualify as such a creator. However, I find this option rather disinteresting. How would you show that this is what really happened? I don't see a way, and we'll be stuck in a situation of "we don't know what happened". As long as science can hypothesize testable (at least in principle) theories of the beginning of the universe, that's the way to go.
As to this:
How laughable can you get? Your evidence is two popular accounts of a scientific theory? And the "U of M" site has its latest reference from 1995, do you think that Wiki might have a bit more up-to-date info?
No, the Wiki does not have the most up to date information for Big Bang. The age of the Universe by most cosmologists is closer to U of M's information than Wiki's information.
You really are banging on your ignorance of the subject. Who are these "most cosmologists", who claim that the universe is about 15 bn years old, instead of 13.8 or thereabouts. The latest data by the Planck probe gives the age as 13.8 bn years, and that was a minor surprise to most cosmologists, as that's some 80 million years higher than our previous-best data indicated. Read all about it here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/21/what-the-entire-universe-is-made-of-thanks-to-planck/
I can tell you that in elementary school in Michigan we were taught the Big Bang, as are most kids. In the decades that followed
Oh, and I definitely didn't mean that string theory should be taught as dogma. Stupid typo on my part, the part should be "as with anything dealing with science, it *shouldn't* be taught as dogma".
Way way off on nearly all you first posted.
Nope, you just didn't understand it.
Did you bother to read this on Wiki?
It seems that you didn't.
Are you calling steady state theory the same as big bang? Both were similar, but until the 80s there was a ton of push trying to determine when the Universe would start to contract because that was required due to the explosion in the Big Bang.
Yes, it really seems that you didn't read the article. For example, steady state theory doesn't explain the CMB, which was observed well before the 80s.
It was because the majority of Cosmologists believed that there was a ball of mass that blew up causing the Universe to begin to exist (and they don't mention how the mass came to exist, or the energy, or the space, or the physics) and for the most part in the Scientific community you were not allowed to discuss it.
Repeating your rubbish doesn't make it right. How about this: Go to your local university or look up their site for email contact info, find an astronomer or a cosmologist, and ask his/her view on this.
If you did, you were shunned and labelled a "Creationist".
So you think that for example string theorists are/were labelled as creationists for proposing systems that would lead to a Big Bang?
Now compare the Wiki with U of M, and see where the same theory can easily contradict itself. As a quick pointer, U of M has the Universe at 15+ billion years, Wiki at 13.
How laughable can you get? Your evidence is two popular accounts of a scientific theory? And the "U of M" site has its latest reference from 1995, do you think that Wiki might have a bit more up-to-date info?
Belief in a creator is a 50/50 shot.
:D This one is a gem. Sure, like winning lottery is a 50/50 shot. You either win, or you don't.
I gave no false facts. The BB theory by Gamow's concept was a ball of mass exploding which matches what I stated.
Oops, you did it again. An explosion would require pre-existing space. The explosion description is only an analogy.
It also does not change the _fact_ that there are numerous different competing BB theories. Size of mass, energy required, age of the Universe are all different.
You seem to be very confused about what a theory means. I'll give you an analogy: At a time when we didn't have very exact measurements of the speed of light in vacuum, your absurd definition of a theory would mean that there's an infinity of Einsteinian theories of relativity. One has the speed of light value of 299 792 458 m/s, another 299 792 458.1 m/s. That's just plain rubbish. There's one special and one general theory of relativity, with the parameter values we have measured. Other parameter values are ruled out the measurements.
BB was proven to be a rather funny joke, which is why it had to adopt EV theories to remain relevant.
Show me where this was proven. And again, no-one using the abbreviation "EV" should tell you something.
Let me guess, you never looked at the U of M web site did you?
WTF? I even gave you a link to what I think you mean by the U of M site. If it's not the correct, please provide an actual reference.
And while I'm not a cosmologist or an astronomer, I'd say I have a reasonable understanding of the BB theory and its history. Heck, reading about cosmology some 18 years ago was the main reason for me to start studying physics a few years later, and I still closely follow the area of research.
Kraus not demanding a punishment does not change the fact that he want's the teaching of specific subject matter illegal.
Please provide references. In secular countries the US, teaching religion in this sense in schools is already illegal. But I'd like you to show me where he demands that parents indoctrinating their children with a religion should be made illegal instead of it being morally wrong.
Further, you calling your children names has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of teaching them to answer to question creation.
I'm not sure where you got this part, but for once, you are right. Teaching critical thinking is not indoctrination, though.
Teaching them to think about a theory is not a harmful act, calling names or hitting them is, or at least has greater potential.
You are missing the part about teaching them to believe and not question a fairy tale.
If you want to claim "Religion is not proven" then the same punishment should be proper for teaching them Big Bang or EV theory.
Rubbish. Telling children that a fairy tale is true is not comparable to presenting the current scientific knowledge.
They are all theories.
Religion is not a theory, it's fantasy.
Do you support punishing parents for teaching their kids String theory too?
Well, String Theories have at least some hope of being correct. But, as with anything dealing with science, it should be taught as dogma. You are once again building a straw man, as I've nowhere demanded punishing parents for teaching religious rubbish to their children.
Stalin used Marxist theories, and condemned Religious people to death.
Stalin condemned a big lot of non-religious communists to death, too, while there remained persons in the USSR who were not condemned to death. To blame atheism for the acts done in building up a person cult and a dictatorship is ignorance of historical facts.
The point of the examples of Catholicism are that you can't blame Religion for shitty things people
There were no factual errors.
There were several factual errors, starting from your revisionist claims of BB theory, which I showed wrong. Buy the G. Gamow's book I mentioned, or better yet, find Gamow's BB nucleosynthesis article from 1948 (that's before event there was the rather misleading name "Big Bang theory").
If I claim that you must believe like me, then I'm a horrible Religious person correct?
Well, pretty much so. Show me the evidence for your argument, which have absolutely refused to do.
So Krauss does this as an atheist, and it's not just as horrible?
Krauss bases his view on what we can observe (in the scientific sense, in a repeatable way), and speculates on what we can possibly extrapolate from that data. Any religious view can't do that. And yet, the scientific views like Krauss's doesn't say you *must* believe like me, it's rather that you should look at the evidence (or lack of it) we have, and draw your own conclusions, not cram it down your children's throats.
Krauss with his specific beliefs requiring the punishment of anyone that digs for the prime question and comes to a conclusion different than his.
Again, show me where he requires punishment for that. You don't say what your *prime question* is, but I'd guess it has something to do with the beginning of the universe, and Krauss along with others is actually helping a new generation or two to get some handle in perhaps digging into those issues.
What is the punishment for Child abuse? Now you are nitpicking and not making sense at all. In addition to removal of children from custody, it's a felony. Duration for imprisonment depends on the State as well as the Judicial system (Jury, Judges, Lawyers, etc...). If I say "atheists should be charged as murders" it won't mean anything if I don't say "and they should go to jail for X years!"? Sorry, it does not work that way in any language.
Common misunderstanding in these issues, in your part, that is. If I abuse my children by calling them bastards every now and them, while otherwise keeping good care of them, it's not a punishable offence. You just don't want understand underlying issues that may affect the development of a child if he, say, has to always be afraid of going to hell if he does one bad thing.
That does not follow at all. The laws in my country say that hard drugs like heroin are illegal, and I wouldn't be a criminal by determining that hard drugs are necessary for people.
Did you decide that someone believing that there is a creator is as harmful to society as feeding a child heroin.
And you didn't get it. In the example, I would be just expressing my opinion that heroin is good for you, not feeding or injecting anyone with heroin.
Stop blaming fucked up people on Religion, it's absolute rubbish!
Where did I do that?
The two biggest mass murders in history committed their atrocities for power and were atheists. In the process, they deemed it necessary to kill anyone of any Religion. Does that mean that every atheist in the world is as fucked up as Mao and Stalin? Obviously the answer is "no".
Where did Hitler go? Oh, he was shown to have deep religious connections. I'd guess Stalin is the next one to drop off the list with his religious training... Where is the Pope on your list? The body count in Africa is getting pretty good with the prevention of condom usage. Or the Christian God, the worst murderer of all times (at least for the Christians): He invented death.
If the Catholic Church doctrine told their followers to be pedophiles, would they have done so?
I have no idea of how we got from your atheist bashing and BB theory misconceptions to this point, but very well... Would you end
And still no acknowledgements of the factual errors you have presented...
And Krauss also claims that anyone teaching any Religion to a child should be jailed for Child abuse.
Provide quotation for the requirement of jailing the parents. Saying that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse doesn't mean claiming that the parents should be jailed for that.
So people that look for the answer, and determine that there needs to be a creator are criminals to him.
That does not follow at all. The laws in my country say that hard drugs like heroin are illegal, and I wouldn't be a criminal by determining that hard drugs are necessary for people.
People are taught not to look for the beginning of all things.
OK, please show where this happens in science and atheism. It's pure rubbish, even Krauss, who you so eager to put down, has published a book that clearly establishes the fact that we don't know what happened at the beginning or even if there really was a beginning per se at all, and then goes on to present some of his views on the subject.
You nicely ignore the points showing that you are factually wrong.
Who are paid to claim those things? The vocal atheists are saying that in light of the evidence (or lack of it), it seems very unlikely that there is a god or gods, and that we have a framework which does a god job in explaining what we see about our universe at the moment.
Did you even bother to listen to any of the 5-10 minute segments with Larry Kraus in them? Kraus is not the best person to publicly speak on the EV theory, yet he does and gets paid a lot of money to do so.
Why don't you quote what you actually claimed? Krauss does not say that we are 100 % certain that there isn't a creator and so on, he says that a) we can build hypotheses that don't require a creator, and b) we have no evidence of such an entity. Thus a creator is an unlikely hypothesis.
If you watch his segments and see him using ad hominem against Religion,
It's not an ad hominem when the religion's (Christianity I'd guess) holy book exactly describes a bully god. It's not an ad hominem to attack an idea.
should you not wonder if that's why he's getting paid assloads of money to speak on EVs behalf? He gets book promotions, as do many others that denounce all Religion
People pay public speakers, was that news to you? And drop the "EV" junk.
and push atheism in science.
Science by definition doesn't recognize anything supernatural, including gods.
Government grant's go to papers that denounce a creator while similar work gets nothing.
Well, can you show some scientific work and results done by creationists? The ID folk have tried and tried, and nothing has come out of it. Rubbish like irreducible complexity has been presented, and shown wrong.
There's plenty of private parties like the Templeton Foundation with money to spare on non-scientific studies.
I know you messed up the quote, no biggie. From that statement however, it is clearly you that are ignorant. Search for the Big Bang and you will find numerous competing theories.
Well, I'm a physicist (in a different field), and I don't think that anyone I know who's working in a related area would agree with you. Why don't you present some of those competing theories that have passed peer review?
U of M's web site has some of the history. The U of M web site calls "EV" theory "Big Bang".
That your source doesn't recognize your "EV" should tell you something. Googling for "U of M big bang" produces this: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm There's nothing to support your claims there. If you are talking about some other site, please give the reference.
There was a massive publication in the last year that claimed that the Ball of mass that blew up must have been 270million light years in diameter.
Where? What ball of mass? And what's a "massive publication"? There are always fringe hypotheses that may even get published in decent journals, but data is what sorts the incorrect ones out (see below).
So the Big Bang still depends on who you care to believe. Some date the Universe at 13billion years old, others as much as 19 billion,
Read up on the research. The Planck probe gives our best estimate for the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, and Planck is working at a resolution level that won't get better by improving the detection system. Anything claiming the age to be much more than that is excluded by the data, unless a non-BB universe is proposed too.
Absolutely, that's kind of how science and math works.
I have to say I got a laugh out of this. Bundling math with science in terms of theories is ridiculous; unlike science, in math you have proofs.
Sorry, messed up the last quote.
These questions show that you know very little about the Big Bang (BB) theories. First one: There was no ball of mass. The current prevailing inflationary BB theories suggest that after a period of exponential expansion, the observable universe was formed from the energy released from the inflation field in a phase change, giving rise to a high energy state. Second question is basically just a rephrasing of the first one.
That is not the Big Bang theory in earnest, that is the Expanding Vacuum theory. The Big Bang was so fucked up and easily disproved, that they adopted the EV theory and claim that they never said there was an exploding ball of mass. Revisionist bullshit, go read a book on the Big Bang written any time in the 1900s.
You simply don't know what you are talking about here. For example, George Gamow describes the essentials of current Big Bang theory in his textbook The Creation of the Universe, written in semi-popular style in 1952, only 3 years after the term Big Bang was coined. The book doesn't include inflation, which came later to explain the smoothness of the high-energy state, and it has some specific details wrong, like the estimate for the CMB temperature is an order of magnitude too high, as at the time the estimate for the age of the universe was an order of magnitude low, and the two are inversely proportional.
Rubbish. Produce the exact quote in context.
My 9 year old Nephew has no trouble using Google and finding videos on Youtube, why can't you? He is easy to find since he's been on dozens of nationally broadcast TV shows like "The Colbert Report", "The Daily Show" and more. In addition to numerous taped presentations at Universities and other public places.
Google finds zero hits for that quote. I know Lawrence Krauss, and I even own some of his books. The context is important here; so what if a physicist doesn't want to speculate about multiverse and eternal inflation scenarios to answer questions that we don't know answers for, possibly in some popular interview, and instead answer with a flippant remark? What he says is: "I don't know, but we have some hypotheses that don't require the God of the Old Testament to create the universe."
Again, rubbish. The scientific position is that as we have no theory extending to the beginning of our universe, the question is unanswerable. If there is some sort of a specific beginning or a cause, it could be eternal inflation, a guy starting up his computer universe simulator, or Odin. We have no way of differentiating between those options.
If that were true, then people would not be being paid to claim that there is no God, no Creator, and that the Big Bang and EV theories are all you need to know! I can see that even when propaganda is spelled out for you, you refuse to believe it exists. I can't fix your mental deficiency, I can only point it out.
Who are paid to claim those things? The vocal atheists are saying that in light of the evidence (or lack of it), it seems very unlikely that there is a god or gods, and that we have a framework which does a god job in explaining what we see about our universe at the moment.
No. Anyone asking the question *within BB theory* is ignorant of the theory, in the same way that someone asking about the origin of life on Earth with the theory of evolution is ignorant of the theory.
Which Big Bang theory are you claiming to be true? There are dozens. Use "Google", as mentioned previously a 9 year old can do it so you can as well. Also, stay on topic. This is something else my 9 year old nephew has no issues with.
Again, to claim that there are several BB theories shows ignorance of the subject. High-energy initial state, nucleosynthesis for the light elements, expansion and cooling down, formatio
This is going to hurt, but I feel the same way about atheism. Atheists are taught that the Universe could just happen, contrary to what we know and observe everywhere else in the Universe.
You already go wrong here. For example virtual particles just "happen", without anything in particular making them appear at this particular moment.
Everything we see and observe has a cause, yet when it comes to the most important event we could discuss you can't ask "where the ball of mass came from for the big bang and how did physics already exist?" or "how did a vacuum just appear with mass, energy, and physics already inside?".
These questions show that you know very little about the Big Bang (BB) theories. First one: There was no ball of mass. The current prevailing inflationary BB theories suggest that after a period of exponential expansion, the observable universe was formed from the energy released from the inflation field in a phase change, giving rise to a high energy state. Second question is basically just a rephrasing of the first one.
The answer from the top atheist propagandist, Lawrence Kraus, is immediately "I don't need some bully in the sky to make the Universe." What? That does not change or answer the questions!
Rubbish. Produce the exact quote in context.
Most atheists are brainwashed into thinking that if they ask about the beginning of the Universe, they are ignorant.
Again, rubbish. The scientific position is that as we have no theory extending to the beginning of our universe, the question is unanswerable. If there is some sort of a specific beginning or a cause, it could be eternal inflation, a guy starting up his computer universe simulator, or Odin. We have no way of differentiating between those options.
Worse, they are taught that anyone asking the question is ignorant.
No. Anyone asking the question *within BB theory* is ignorant of the theory, in the same way that someone asking about the origin of life on Earth with the theory of evolution is ignorant of the theory.
The rest of your post is just you banging on your straw man.