SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (9076)12/16/2010 7:31:46 AM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 10087
 
Reminder: 'God Hates Fags' Church Run By Democrats

By Lachlan Markay | December 15, 2010 | 19:08

Given the Westboro Baptist Church's protest at the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, it's worth revisiting the old lefty canard that the group is "right-wing." The claim is especially popular in the liberal blogosphere, where it's made ad nauseum during any discussion of the group.

So let's review some history. Fred Phelps, the head of the "church," actually has a long history of support for Democrats. He has run as a Democrat for governor of Kansas three times, mayor of Topeka twice, and for the U.S. Senator once.

Al Gore was apparently the family's favorite Democrat. Phelps himself was a Gore delegate when he ran for president in 1988. The Phelpses even held a fundraiser for Gore in their Topeka, Kansas home. Their support paid off. The Phelps family was invited to the Clinton/Gore inaugurations in 1993 and 1997.


Here are some pictures originally posted at the website of the Log Cabin Republicans (link above) more than 10 years ago of Gore and various members of the Phelps family:



Phelps's son, Fred Jr. (left) and Al Gore (center) at the fundraiser held at the Phelps's Topeka home.



Left to right: Fred Phelps Jr., Tipper Gore, Betty Phelps, Al Gore



Left to right: Phelps's son Timothy, Al Gore, Fred Phelps Jr.

This is all worth remembering in case a reporter picks up on this meme - currently confined to the nutroots - and pushes it into the mainstream.

Read more: newsbusters.org



To: koan who wrote (9076)12/16/2010 7:40:15 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10087
 
Uncertain:

We know the things of the physical universe are all in a process of change. It is the process which we observe rather than the thing as it is.

What is the measure of transition we can detect before the state of some thing has changed? We actually do not have the ability to measure change that exactly. We can just point to the fact that transition does occur. But when the state of one thing in the Universe has changed, every other thing in the Universe has had a transition of state. It is for this reason that we remain uncertain about our observations at least to some degree. They are snapshots and like any kind of snapshot we can't be certain we've got the whole picture. It seems there is always more that can be known about any particular observation. For instance, everything in the Universe does have a relative effect on everything else, the majority of which can not be known by direct observation.

More certain:

When I say something is certain, I am bound to invite contention simply by the nature of the statement since things can be looked at from differing perspectives and because certainty may mean different things. You believe with certainty you love your daughters; someone else may doubt that. You believe goodness is charity and generosity; and you believe badness is corruption, greed, and cruelty but some other posters challenged you recently on that notion with respect to greed. So there is certainty about belief where confidence tampers with belief. You may feel certain about the general nature of the physical universe, while less confident about the forces and influences imbued within or acting upon the physical universe. The grounding upon which you believe you know the nature of the universe could be shaken, and your existentialists have underscored beingness with absurdity and groundlessness, making any pat statement somewhat shaky, which becomes a psychological dilemma.

Higher degree of certainty:

Metaphysical certainty involves more awareness and less computational proof. You could say for example, "I am aware, therefore I am, I am therefore my experience is, my experience is therefore the universe is, etc etc etc" and have no problem with the certainty of that statement. It is a credible statement resembling a scientific statement but unjustifiable in the laboratory.



To: koan who wrote (9076)12/17/2010 12:56:10 AM
From: average joe1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
"That is how the scientists say the universe is laid out."

Big Bang(s): Universe dies and is reborn endlessly: theory

Adam McDowell, National Post
Friday, Dec. 3, 2010

Ripples of radiation in the sky have all but convinced a famous British physicist that the Big Bang was not the true beginning, that the universe dies and is reborn endlessly, and that the laws of existence permit at least a glimpse behind the curtain of infinity.

Last month, Oxford University physicist Sir Roger Penrose and an Armenian colleague, Vahe Gurzadyan, published a paper online arguing that the cosmic microwave background radiation that surrounds us at all times contains circular patterns of relatively uniform temperature. Mr. Penrose believes these are echoes of collisions between supermassive black holes in what he calls the “aeon” before our own, a universe separated from ours by the Big Bang.

According to the theory, billions of years from now, practically nothing will be left in the old, cold and enormous universe.

Time itself will end, because it can only exist if there are particles with mass to experience it. If there is no time, distance cannot exist either. So when the last mass vanishes, a universe that was unimaginably huge will have no size at all, setting the stage for another Big Bang.

Until this fall, Mr. Penrose said this week, he expected he might never see potential evidence of anything older than the Big Bang.

“I’m saying not only was there something before, but what there was before was the remote future of a previous aeon,” he said. “If the idea isn’t shot down by something that we’ve missed, this gives us a handle on things we thought we’d have no idea about.”

The paper, with the somewhat impenetrable title “Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity,” contends that the 30 to 40 microwave radiation disturbances observed so far provide evidence of Mr. Penrose’s concept of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC). (The “WMAP” referred to in the title is a NASA satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.)

The paper has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, but the researchers have submitted it to the prestigious journal Science.

This is not the first picture of the universe to imply an infinite string of Big Bangs — earlier such theories were articulated in 1920s by the Russian cosmologist Alexander Friedmann, and in the 1930s by the American Richard Tolman — but its basic outline may be the most difficult to understand.

Previous theories involving cyclical universes have imagined one aeon giving away to another through “Big Crunches,” a contraction of the universe causing everything left to collide into a nothingness, but CCC is more esoteric than that.

“People always think I’m saying the universe comes back into a Big Crunch and then gets started off again, but that doesn’t work,” Mr. Penrose said.

Our universe, in his view, ends in something more like a Big Not Much.

Perhaps 10 to the power of 100 years from now — a time so far away that our 13.7-billion-year-old universe would appear to be an infinitesimal fraction of a second old to that future universe’s year — practically nothing will be left in the cold, diffuse and enormous universe except black holes, which will be radiating away into nothingness excruciatingly slowly.

Eventually even the black holes will “pop” into oblivion with roughly the force of an artillery shell, a comically tiny whimper on the cosmological scale.

“It just struck me that this was a particularly gloomy fate for this very wonderful universe of ours,” Mr. Penrose said over the phone from his home in England.

His CCC concept — some fellow cosmologists say it cannot even be dignified as a “theory” because it lacks the necessary mathematical underpinning — involves accepting the idea that when all of the universe’s mass eventually and inevitably has been sucked into black holes and transformed into energy, time and space will cease to exist as well.

Time only exists if there are particles with mass to experience it. If there are no longer any particles with mass left in the universe, nothing exists to keep time itself, the universe’s clock, ticking.

If there is no time, Mr. Penrose explained, distance does not exist either. Physicists regard time and space as being so intertwined that you cannot have one without the other. And because space is another way of saying distance, a timeless and spaceless universe is a distanceless one as well. “There’s nothing around to tell you how big you are,” he said.

In short, when the last mass vanishes, a universe that was unimaginably enormous suddenly has no size at all. The universe grinds to a dark and immeasurable halt. “You need to have some technical mathematics to make the whole scheme fit together — you have to look at the details. The leap of imagination here is … if there’s nothing around there to measure the scale of things, big and small are really equivalent,” Mr. Penrose said.

The hope for this dead universe lies in the fact that it begins to sound like the zero volume, infinite energy state that existed at the moment “before” the Big Bang. Mr. Penrose’s self-described “outrageous” claim imagines one universe’s corpse as another’s embryo.

“Now the thing to get your mind around, of course, is how can this little tiny squashed-up space at the Big Bang, enormously hot and enormously dense, be matched with the completely opposite state … enormously cold and enormously spread out?”

How indeed, question other physicists, cleaving to the old maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence — which they have not seen yet.

Bill Unruh of the University of British Columbia has listened to Mr. Penrose’s talks, and understands the CCC concept to mean that the universe eventually “forgets all scales [that is, distances], and all scales, instead of being immensely large become immensely small, and a Big Bang starts again,” he wrote in an email this week.

“How that transformation happens I do not believe he has any explanation for — it is just ‘magic.’ ”

Prof. Unruh’s UBC colleague Douglas Scott is likewise unconvinced by the arguments in the latest paper and he also doubted the evidence for radiation speaking to us from a previous aeon.

“If this was true … it would be truly astonishing, and one of the most significant results ever discovered about the cosmos. Unfortunately, there are several problems with the claim,” he said in an email.

And he has difficulties with the way Mr. Penrose and Mr. Gurzadyan interpreted the WMAP data.

“The bottom line is that the result would be astonishing if it showed that there was structure before the Big Bang imprinted on the sky,” he wrote. “But as a scientist I am usually skeptical of radical claims. And I am very skeptical of this result!”

David Spergel, a Princeton University cosmologist who has helped Mr. Penrose examine the cosmic microwave background radiation for a whisper of old aeons, complained to Science News magazine that while the ripples would seem to be in step with the CCC concept, the paper lacks enough technical detail to evaluate the claims about them.

Mr. Penrose has argued that the data has been cross-referenced with information from BOOMERanG98, another microwave radiation probe.

His search for ripples in the cosmic microwave background radiation began with a brainstorm about what elements of a previous aeon could possibly intrude into ours.

He hypothesized that radiation from the collision of supermassive black holes in the last aeon would still be around to “kick” and disturb the canopy of microwave radiation created in the opening second of our aeon.

“What I imagined was something like rain falling on a pond, and each drop of rain causes this ripple going out,” he said.

Because black holes are likely, in an old universe, to pile up in multiple collisions that unfold over long stretches of time, Mr. Penrose expected to see sets of rings in the radiation glow centred around the sites of multple crashes. So in September, he asked Mr. Gurzadyan, who was combing the WMAP data for areas of unusually uniform temperature, if he saw concentric patterns of rings.

“He looked at me and said, ‘That’s exactly what you see,’ ” Mr. Penrose said.

Mr. Gurzadyan believed he could see them in a dozen places in the sky. Where there was one ring there was always at least one more, and sometimes as many as five altogether.

As elated as this left Mr. Penrose, it will take much more persuasion and evidence before other cosmologists will see the same thing (assuming they ever do), and he knows it. Once an advocate of the now-discredited Steady State theory of the universe, the 79-year-old is aware that cosmological models themselves are born, live and die in an apparently endless succession.

He said that over the last few years, his colleagues have listened, albeit skeptically. “I don’t think they were taking it too seriously, but people have tended to be pretty polite. They haven’t told me they thought it was completely daft, but I don’t think that meant they believed me.

“This is the way I’d tend to present it before: ‘Here’s a crazy idea, but maybe we should take crazy ideas seriously.’ And it is a crazy idea, if you like. I wouldn’t have presented it as something that was probably true. But I always thought it had a good chance of being true. Fifty-fifty. OK, a 30% chance,” he said.

“It’s grown way into the nineties now. The high nineties.”

National Post

nationalpost.com



To: koan who wrote (9076)12/17/2010 4:59:41 PM
From: TimF1 Recommendation  Respond to of 10087
 
There are quite a few religious liberals, and some conservative atheists or agnostics (the number being lower because by most counts a very strong majority of the country believes in some religion, even if only very mildly).

"A quantum universe" is one where you can never know the exact position and momentum of a sub atomic particle (really of anything, but the minimal level of uncertainty is so low that for ordinary items it can be ignored). It doesn't say anything about the existence (or lack thereof) of God. It doesn't say anything about the objective vs. subjective nature of truth. It doesn't answer ethical questions, or questions of epistemology. It doesn't answer any political questions. Its essentially irrelevant to politics, theology, and most philosophy.