Expert prognosis for the planet

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

The "fact checkers" are the folks misinforming you; they are all a bunch of paid off shills. The fires in Paradise, CA and Maui were the result of DEWs.

Like I said before already. Go walk the burn areas up the Santiam Canyon. You will see this pattern all around. I have, it’s my usual hunting grounds.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I may or may not belong to a religion. I purposely don't share because it's not that kind of forum.

I mean you are the one obsessed with Lucifer/Satan. If that's your thing, that's great, I don't judge.

I grew up Southern Baptist. I got over believing in ludicrous "miracles" a long time ago, but figured it's OK for some. Now I conclude that people not only believing in absurd things with no evidence but thinking that it is the *highest virtue* to believe absurd things with no evidence, makes them *extremely* susceptible to, well, this kinda stuff, also with no evidence... Pathetic, and sad.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by blsfrs

It could be that we are controlled by mycelium. It's everywhere. Underground, on our skin, in our intestines. It could even be in our brains. Masons could be bipedal mycelium beings walking among us. Think about it!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ism-is-fungus/

Oregon too. All the weird shit is in Oregon.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Of course, like creationism and the Big Bang, that doesn't really get to the "root coase" either. I firmly am in the "Who the hell knows but it seems real enough to me" camp.

We are all in the "Who the hell knows" camp. Some of us have beliefs and some have ideas on how life started, but all of us are agnostic. No one knows or is gnostic. If they think they are gnostic then they are confused or crazy. This is why those with beliefs (religions) have faith, and it is why those with ideas (science) keep things open.

The Big Bang describes events after the Big Bang, but it can't describe what happened before it because before the beginning of time is an oxymoron, and where would things happen before the beginning of space? Creationism just gets it wrong all together.

Dreams seem real until we recognize they are dreams or wake up. The Matrix seemed real, as would a simulation to an artificial character in the game. We don't know what this reality is, and we definitely can't learn about this reality from theology. It isn't a pathway to understanding what we don't know; it mostly explained what we use to think about our understanding of nature, how to build society, how to interact, etc. A lot is outdated because societies have advanced. Religious use to advance with society, but then they got dogmatic and society started advancing faster than religions can advance. Scientific explanations grew more popular and advanced faster than they could be reintegrated into religions.

Religions are just a giant leap from the null hypothesis and provide zero answers, but they think they do. We probably will never know the why or root cause either, but I'm fine with that.

[Unplugem]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I see you added this part. That's a mistake on your part lol.

Why not? What about gravity prevents the solar system forming?

How many bodies are there in your make-believe solar system? More than three? If so, it would be unpredictable and "gravity" would make the "orbits" sporadic and unpredictable; it would look something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gxDKd...?feature=share

This is not what we see in our night sky. The paths of stars are the same year after year and the paths of "planets," which are actually wandering stars, are able to be forecasted.
If the "universe" was a thing, that started from "the big bang," which is utter nonsense and complete chaos, then by organizing into the fake Kabbalah "Tree of Life" "solar system," which is orderly, it would be breaking the law of entropy, as things only become more chaotic over time, not more orderly.
The fake "solar system" that you seem to believe in would need to have a creator, in order for it to be as orderly as it is said to be. It simply cannot have been created by something as chaotic as the "big bang theory." Arguing otherwise, you would be denying the law of entropy.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

How many bodies are there in your make-believe solar system? More than three? If so, it would be unpredictable and "gravity" would make the "orbits" sporadic and unpredictable; it would look something like this:

The solar system is *dominated* by the mass of the sun. It's not anything like 3 identical masses, the sun is 99.9% of the mass of the solar system. On very long time scales, planetary paths *are* difficult to predict because of the "N body problem", but our solar system is quite stable/predictable over very long time scales relative to what is required for intelligent life to develop (not surprising, anthropic principal).

This is not what we see in our night sky. The paths of stars are the same year after year and the paths of "planets," which are actually wandering stars, are able to be forecasted.

Yes, because over hundreds of thousands/millions of years, the solar system is very stable and predictable. Oh yeah, the planets are *not* actually "wandering stars". Even our biggest planet, Jupiter, is a long way from having enough mass to initiate fusion and become a *star*.

If the "universe" was a thing, that started from "the big bang," which is utter nonsense and complete chaos, then by organizing into the fake Kabbalah "Tree of Life" "solar system," which is orderly, it would be breaking the law of entropy, as things only become more chaotic over time, not more orderly.

I invite you to further your studies. The time scales over which the solar system is chaotic are much much much greater than the time scale of human history.

The fake "solar system" that you seem to believe in would need to have a creator, in order for it to be as orderly as it is said to be. It simply cannot have been created by something as chaotic as the "big bang theory." Arguing otherwise, you would be denying the law of entropy.

Others have made the point, I encourage you to study further, it is the nature of things for overall entropy to increase while local "order" increases due to short-term (in the scheme of things) "free" energy from the sun drives processes locally on places like Earth that can and have created life that can *observe* the universe. Intelligent life is how the universe became (to some degree) self-aware.

Observing and learning about how the natural world/universe *really* works is the way to know "God". Denying reason and logic and believing crackpot theories with zero evidence, this is the way to hell...

[alex87f]

I'm just curious, how does one become a "paid off shill" fact-checker ? Asking for a friend.

Also, does anyone remember the time when we could have a reasonable discussion on energy, science and other stuff on that forum? Was nice was it not?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

How many bodies are there in your make-believe solar system? More than three? If so, it would be unpredictable and "gravity" would make the "orbits" sporadic and unpredictable; it would look something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gxDKd...?feature=share

This is not what we see in our night sky. The paths of stars are the same year after year and the paths of "planets," which are actually wandering stars, are able to be forecasted.
If the "universe" was a thing, that started from "the big bang," which is utter nonsense and complete chaos, then by organizing into the fake Kabbalah "Tree of Life" "solar system," which is orderly, it would be breaking the law of entropy, as things only become more chaotic over time, not more orderly.
The fake "solar system" that you seem to believe in would need to have a creator, in order for it to be as orderly as it is said to be. It simply cannot have been created by something as chaotic as the "big bang theory." Arguing otherwise, you would be denying the law of entropy.

How can a simulation as seen in those YouTube videos even exist if there were no way to predict the paths of 3 bodies in space? There's simply 2 possibilities. One is that the videos you shared were made up by an artist and do not actually represent a simulation, in which case your argument is based on fake evidence. The other possibility is that the simulation is accurate and thus the motions of multiple bodies are indeed predictable. The motion may appear to be chaotic at first glance but if a person were to understand the underlying physics and mathematics, then the motion makes perfect sense to that person. I believe the latter is true but I am curious as to what side of the paradox you fall on?

Simply put, it is logically impossible to make an argument against the solar system existing based on visual simulations of the three body problem unless you also acknowledge the simulations to be accurate representations of what would happen.

If you acknowledge the simulations as accurate, now we can discuss why those simulations turn out the way they do and why they are different than a solar system.

Let's say we ran those simulations with trillions of tiny items and added in this thing called physical interference, where if two objects collided they would stick together. Call the start of this simulation "birth of the system". Then we run the simulation for billions of years. At first it appears to be utter chaos. Little rocks flying every which way. As time goes on, some of those rocks hit each other and combine into bigger rocks. Those bigger rocks would pick up more and more mass. Generally the biggest mass would be towards the center because that's where most of the collisions occur as there are more rocks flying through the center at any one time than the edges, increasing chances of a collision.

Very quickly in the simulation, we would see the majority of the rocks/mass gather at the center. Since there is so much mass here anything that doesn't have enough tangential speed to overcome the inward force generated by a such large mass would just fall into the central mass. What is left is millions of smaller rocks in somewhat chaotic orbits of that larger mass. As the simulation progresses these rocks are either sucked up by the central mass of rock, or combine into other large masses in apparently stable orbits. Anything that survives this mid-life stage is extremely lucky. Out of trillions of objects, we might have 8 or so major bodies that have pulled in a lot of mass. Maybe a few million more smaller bits just whizzing about. Everything else got pulled into this giant thing at the center.

After a long time we wind up with a stable system from the chaos. If you don't believe me, build or find an accurate simulation with more objects run over a large period of "time" (obviously sped up because none of us will be here in 6 billion years). In conclusion, with more bodies in the system and more time on the clock the "three body problem" actually supports the solar system model because a simulation on that scale would result in at least a similar, if not identical form.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This is why those with beliefs (religions) have faith, and it is why those with ideas (science) keep things open.

At some level, even Science is dependent on faith, although it is typically called theories and hypothesis. It is still something that cannot be proven, but is required for other things that can be proven.

My personal fundamental question goes back to why do we exist at all. While it is difficult to imagine that the existence of nothing is a possible state, it also makes little sense we exist at all.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by alex87f

I'm just curious, how does one become a "paid off shill" fact-checker ? Asking for a friend.

Also, does anyone remember the time when we could have a reasonable discussion on energy, science and other stuff on that forum? Was nice was it not?

You enroll in the university of "trust me bro"

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Arguing otherwise, you would be denying the law of entropy.

Your arguments for always come back to the law of entropy or thermodynamics.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

At some level, even Science is dependent on faith, although it is typically called theories and hypothesis. It is still something that cannot be proven, but is required for other things that can be proven.

My personal fundamental question goes back to why do we exist at all. While it is difficult to imagine that the existence of nothing is a possible state, it also makes little sense we exist at all.

It isn't dependent on faith. A hypothesis is a testable proposition or question. It starts with an observation and seeks to understand how it works through testing, and it includes a prediction or theory to explain the observation that can be tested. Scientists then gather more data. Either the data supports their prediction or theory/model, or it doesn't. From that new data, either new predictions or models are made, or new questions get answered to build on the model. Eventually, the data and experiments build on small models into a greater understanding that culminates into grand Theories of science like the Big Bang Theory, Evolutionary Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory, etc.

Simple example: Cave man notices more active people seem to carry more muscle (observation). He asks himself, if I am more active then will I too gain more muscle (proposition/hypothesis)? He then decides to be more active, so he runs around and picks up things and over time he notices that he adds more muscle to his body (experiment). He concludes that activity has the potential to increase muscle (theory is formed). He then recognizes that he also ate more when he had more activity, so he asks himself a new question/proposition/hypothesis: if I just eat more then will I gain muscle? He stops activity and just eats more (experiment), but only gains fat, so in this case, his null hypothesis is true, and his hypothesis was wrong. He repeats both experiments with the same results. He makes a new proposition: is it possible one form of activity is more effective than others? He creates a study, but this time he does it over a larger sample size, and he finds high intensity low duration activity builds more muscle than low intensity long duration. These results, coupled with observations that strength is associated with muscle size most of the time, and duration improves muscular endurance, leads to a grand Theory of how the body responds to exercise. This grand theory allows him to make predictions about how activities will lead to changes: they will need to run to migrate with the herds, so they will expect to see a loss of muscle size and improvements in muscular endurance.

No where in this process is faith, unless you have a different version of faith.

Theories show, demonstrate or explain. They don't use the word prove because that closes the door for change or for better theories. If Newton said the Theory of Gravity proved gravity then that wouldn't be true. It is a model for explaining observations. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity has greater explanatory power. It doesn't mean Newton's Theory was wrong, but Einstein's is better over a broader range of scientific disciplines and for more observations. Even when grand Theories are formed, there are still theories that can be proposed to refine the Theory. For instance, Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory that builds on the Theory of Evolution by proposing that evolution was a fairly stable and not a gradual process, and it was only when the environment greatly changed that evolution rapidly changed (punctuated changes followed by equilibrium). Just because we can't go back in time and make a video of what happened, doesn't mean we can't know what happened. We just don't say we proved what happen. For instance, you could go into the bathroom and drop a deuce, and I scientist could go into the bathroom after, smell crap, sense the seat is warm, notice the toilet is still filing with water, and know you are a creature of habit and go about this time, but that scientist wouldn't say he proved you just pinched a loaf. He would say all the evidence suggests you did. It is a formality of language scientists use to keep open possibilities that you could have faked it with a stink bomb, or maybe you are hiding a dog in your bedroom and just deposited its droppings in the toilet. While the latter two options are less probable, the scientist tries to keep an open mind.

If bacteria could process its existence, it too would ask itself what is its purpose and why does it exist? It could conclude that it is special, that it was made in the image of its maker, that it brings happiness to its maker who wants to love it and for that maker to be loved back by its creations, but this is just the projections of creatures recognizing reproductive biology, that we are offspring brought into this world through our parents, etc. There is no higher Why in religion that gets answered. While it claims to answer the Why, it really doesn't.

The emergence of intelligent life from simple life isn't profound given the mechanism for change that is involved in reproducing. In that sense, our existence makes sense. The emergence of life from organic compounds (abiogenesis) has been shown, but is less robust in its observations and evidence, so it is as hard to explain as Gem Theory before our understanding of microbes. Nothingness, as a state of consciousness, is hard for some to imagine, which is why they feel like it must go on past death, but they have no problem imagining the state of their lack of consciousness/existence before being born and forming memories. The similarity of that dualism escapes them. Our minds sometimes are just too primitive and simplistic for understanding the universe, as it pertains to the scale of its size and the concepts of oxymorons like before time. It is like we get a computing error in our brain. Our solution to this never ending cycle of asking what came before this or that was to propose something (god/gods/magical events) that would start this process, that was beyond this reality, that could be a prime mover, but that didn't require a prime mover itself. Who made the god/creator of this universe/reality? Was it another god, or did our creator always just exist, and if a god could always exist then could the universe always exist too? Why does the creator exist? What is its purpose? And the questions we ask ourselves can just be passed to such a god, but for many, the existence of a god without a creator is fine, but the existence of the universe without a creator is unnerving and irrational.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Your arguments for always come back to the law of entropy or thermodynamics.

It is unclear to me what he believes. He seems to be trying to use science to disprove science. Science has laws (observations of the universe that are NEVER broken), which he seems to accept, yet he doesn't accept the scientific model of the universe, so he is trying to say the scientific model must be fake because the laws, which are not fake science, aren't consistent in this model.

There is a lot of hubris in his statements that he has disproven science, but his thought process is also based on the idea that governments, scientists and secrete organizations like Free Masons have built a false model that is easy to destroy with clever observations. In his mind, his observations of nature, that have scientific explanations, but that he is ignorant of, demonstrate that the scientific model of the universe is false.

@Unplugem

Do you accept the laws of science (universal observations that are never broken)?

If so then what is the 2nd law of thermodynamics? What does it mean? Give an example.

If the laws are true (universal observations that are never broken), and you exist and this planet exists, and those things are consistent with the laws based on the scientific definition of the law (which is why we can call it a law), then in what way is the model of the universe and this solar system inconsistent with that law? Are you saying the law is wrong, or are you saying the model (our understanding of our observations of the solar system and universe) is wrong?

If you are sayin the law is wrong then you can't use it to explain what something else is wrong, so you must believe it is correct. If you are saying the law is right, but the model is inconsistent with the law, how is it inconsistent?

As ZDan explained, the solar system behaves more like a two bodied system and not a three bodied system because the sun has 99.86% of the mass of the whole solar system. You clearly believe the model is wrong, but how is it then that the Earth, Moon and Sun aren't moving in chaos based on the three-body-problem? If you think some higher power is governing the motion then why couldn't it be possible for a natural power/energy to do the same thing, but we just haven't discovered it yet?

A lot of your statements negating the existing scientific model would also negate your own model, so be careful.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is unclear to me what he believes. He seems to be trying to use science to disprove science.

Pretty sure he is a creationist that uses conspiracy theories to justify his world view.

I don't really care what other people's worldview is and am not bothered by it, they can put it out there all they want and I try to leave it up to myself but the lack of basic scientific understanding that is proveable is laughable in his case. I actually really like listening to things that counter my own world view, you usually learn a good amount. Either new factual information or another example of one of the extreme ends of human condition and how it affects another individuals worldview. IE' "why TF do they think that way?" Unplugem has lost my interest pretty quick though in the way he glosses over responses and tries the "baffle em with bs" approach providing valid argument.