Periodic Table finally completed

[william.scherk]

I will leave the field to my betters. But here is a thought: there is a reason why Scientists Generally Do Not Tout God. I think this is because that is not their job.

Explaining the thrill to come if Gravitational Waves are truly detected -- why this would be Extra Large News in science -- I cannot do it. Here is a young cane toad doing his best to get across the major concepts and implications in under 12 minutes. He may or may not believe in a divine plan of the cosmos. I am going to watch the video again with an eagle eye out for pride, bloating and other signs of the secular devil. You spelling spankers can watch a frog in a blender while I work.

If Greg would like to type out X minutes-worth of wisdom on gravitational waves, I would be happy to turn it into an instructive video. Here is a model for Greg's work, from God Is Real: MIT Scientist Touts Conclusive Scientific Evidence Of The Discovery Of God:

Edited January 13, 2016 by william.scherk

[moralist]

William bloats like a toad as if he created what he Googles.

Greg

[moralist]

William writes:

I think he might be trying to contrast a humble discoverer with a prideful discoverer.

Not trying. I did.

Greg

[RobinReborn]

.

Peter, even if the number of physical laws in the universe is finite and even if the number of kinds of chemical elements is limited, there is no limit in principle to the number of things men can invent using them. There is no limit to what men can create with Carbon, for example. But for the circumstance that the species man will cease.* Still, for man: “So many days have not yet broken.” –Rig Veda

How can you derive infinite from the finite? There is a limit to what can be created with carbon, there's only so much mass in the universe and there are only so many ways to arrange it. Granted the number of ways is astronomically large, but that's not the same as infinite.

[moralist]

Robin writes:

There is a limit to what can be created with carbon

There is. Nothing can be created with carbon. Things can be built with carbon, but not created.

To create means to make something out of nothing. No human can do that.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

FALSE!

[BaalChatzaf]

Robin writes:

There is a limit to what can be created with carbon

There is. Nothing can be created with carbon. Things can be built with carbon, but not created.

To create means to make something out of nothing. No human can do that.

Greg

It also means to make something that has not been made before, either by man or nature.

Creation is the making of something new, not necessarily creation ex nihilo.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

Ba'al is correct. Dictionary definitions of create. Note origin in Oxford Dictionary, now obsolete.

[Guyau]

.

Greg, wake up. Where is your education in Christianity? Any Christian should know that what you are passing off as “creation” requires the qualification “ex nihilo creation.” It’s boringly plain by now you’ve come here to preach to the Objectivists. For goodness sake, have some exactitude. Follow Dylan in "I'll know my song well before I start singin." Rand conceived creation—human creation, the type of creation that actually exists—as a rearrangement of existents already available in some form. That was not original with her, but it was a needed articulation to stress, just to be sure, made up-front explicit in her elementary writings on esthetics. It is what we mean by “creation” here in this subculture you like to preach to and in the entire English-speaking world. “Creation ex nihilo” is our way and the standard way of referring to the (chimera of) creation of the world from nothing.

Robin, there are infinite possible arrangements of matter and energy, notwithstanding restriction to the finite amount of mass-energy in the universe and notwithstanding the confused remarks on infinity from Ayn Rand and her disciples by way of quashing religious and philosophically mystical metaphysics (such as in Hegel). I see that yet another molecular arrangement of purely carbon atoms was recently accomplished and announced last week. Rand was right to say, even in a finite world with a finite number of natural laws, man’s is a step that travels unlimited roads.

By the way, Rand thought, like many before her, that existence as a whole could not come into or go out of existence. To her that probably meant that the universe necessarily existed an infinite time in the past and will exist an infinite time into the future. I have pointed out years past repeatedly on these posting sites that really the thesis in the first sentence of this paragraph entails only that there can be no times at which existence did not exist (e.g. if there was no time before the Big Bang, there would be no times in which the universe did not exist), and Harry Binswanger has joined me in that point in his tome How We Know.

Every day there is a different fire in my fireplace. Even if the universe were such that it were possible to build a new fire every 24 hours an infinite number of times into the future, it would remain that no two fires were ever the same. That is because the infinity of possible fires (all the details of ways a fire is lain up and burns down to ashes) is a higher order of infinity (Cantor) than that denumerable infinity of 24-hour intervals of future time. So too, I think it is sensible to recognize the reality of infinite possibilities for man (though the number of possible inventions is at most only a denumerable infinity), even though the species will not last forever. (Like the individual man or woman, life of the species will have been an end in itself along all the days it lasts.)

[william.scherk]

I see that yet another molecular arrangement of purely carbon atoms was recently accomplished and announced last week.

I looked for that particular announcement but didn't find it. What I found wasn't a 'creation' of the new material, but the scientific ground-work accomplished to make new materials efficiently, lessening trial-and-error. In this work, the materials scientists seeded the field, with a compelling prediction of chemical-atomic behaviour. The emerging theoretical-practical field is concerned with "Nano-Hybrid" materials. A news release explains it better than I:

Rice materials scientist Rouzbeh Shahsavari and Farzaneh Shayeganfar, a postdoctoral researcher at Montreal Polytechnic, designed computer simulations that combine graphene, the atom-thick form of carbon, with either carbon or boron nitride nanotubes.

Their hope is that such hybrids can leverage the best aspects of their constituent materials. Defining the properties of various combinations would simplify development for manufacturers who want to use these exotic materials in next-generation electronics. The researchers found not only electronic but also magnetic properties that could be useful.

Their results appear in the journal Carbon. [Electronic and pseudomagnetic properties of hybrid carbon/boron-nitride nanomaterials via ab-initio calculations and elasticity theory]

-- I am glad one of these two Muslim Scientists managed to find a home in Canada. If Trump had his way, he'd never get across the border, "until we figure things out." Science hops on, though. Thank goodness for the Internet.

I looked for examples of Bloated Toad behaviour on the subject of Nano Hybrid material scientists. Besides lording it over everyone in their self-congratulating journals and conferences and press-releases, zip. Excitement and pride, sure. Bloating, not so much. All I could really find was this breezy video on the promise and wonder within this exploding creative field. There is just a hint of croaking and bloating around the second-minute mark, and of course no mention of God's Creation Trumping All, so ...

Of course, the Moralist in us might still get pinch-faced about nano-technology. "You didn't build that!" he might croak. "God made it all possible, you create NOTHING!"

This is presumably what Greg croaks out at his wife. "Honey, I made you something fresh and creative in the kitchen." "You create NOTHING!"

Edited January 15, 2016 by william.scherk

[Guyau]

.

William, the recent product I had in mind is called Q-carbon. Jagdish Narayan and Anagh Bhaumik at North Carolina State University created it. I know that after buckyballs (carbon-60) were created in the lab, it was later found they are also in nature, in interstellar space. It is thought that Q-carbon could be found in nature also, in the core of some planets.

On the Syrian refugees arriving in Canada, the story of family of the famous-photo boy drowned on the shore of the Mediterranean was reported last evening on the PBS News Hour here. Meanwhile, what we hear from so many Republican voices is only “That boy was killed by Obama!” Obscene dishonest shouts piled on and on to distract from the moral depravity of their refusal of refugees to America. Ayn Rand (and really millions of Americans) would smile to Canada and the others like it in saving these people.

[william.scherk]

.

William, the recent product I had in mind is called Q-carbon. Jagdish Narayan and Anagh Bhaumik at North Carolina State University created it. I know that after buckyballs (carbon-60) were created in the lab, it was later found they are also in nature, in interstellar space. It is thought that Q-carbon could be found in nature also, in the core of some planets.

Thanks, Stephen. I got mixed up in thinking you meant just last week. Q-carbon is so cool. For those who don't follow, Q-carbon is harder than diamond and easier to make. See New Type of Carbon Is Harder and Brighter Than Diamonds.

-- You didn't Create^® that!

-- It didn't come out of a tin can, you nitwit.

On the Syrian refugees arriving in Canada, the story of family of the famous-photo boy drowned on the shore of the Mediterranean was reported last evening on the PBS News Hour here.

It can be such a depressing subject. Last night, Donald Trump showed off his utter ignorance, in suggesting Obama's SOTU guest Refaai Hamo might be nice, but generally Syrian refugees are a "Trojan Horse," as he has been doing in his rallies since the State of the Union address. Just look at Jakarta, he said.

Depressing to think that he hasn't done much extended thinking on this. In any case, under Trump, nice or not, Hamo will be deported back to the war zone. Marginally more stupid and ignorant was the New Jersey thug, who said: "We should take no Syrian refugees of any kind.” And ... “Syrians should stay in Syria. They shouldn’t be going to Europe or to the US."

Aylan Kurdi's remaining family from Syria safely made it to Vancouver last month. His father stayed behind. It was a very moving time in the city for those with New York values. The planes are still dumping Syrians at Canadian airports. Many are Christian. All have been fucked up by the Syrian war. Half are children.

It is a full-in community engagement here, as if Canadians decided the incoming are not likely to become terrorists if hugged and squeezed long enough, if they are brought right into the family, not as suspicious dark people who need to be feared foremost, but as normal people fleeing horror.

If Mr Trump and the other haters could look beyond the polls, they might note the conditions of starvation siege imposed on Madaya. The scenes of starving children are unbearable, evidence of war crimes.

Back you go, Dr Hamo, along with your Trojan children. Take a big lunch.

I was rather disgusted by the showboating Trudeau and assorted pols did at the airport when the first charters unloaded hundreds of Christian Armenian-Syrians. Trudeau was especially pandering and repulsive to my cynical eye, and yet. And yet. When he said, "Welcome. Welcome home to Canada," I raged at his rhetoric and his calculation and his mythomania.

Later, I saw what effect that calculated phrase and action had. That airport performance announced the Canadian brand and splashed it across world media. You cannot buy that kind of advertising. It resounded especially strongly in the Arab-Muslim world. It also was quite meaningful to Canadians of recent citizenship, especially those who have struggled to achieve. It was meaningful to former refugees like Vietnamese-Canadians, who mobilized for the 'next' wave.

The contrast between a Wall of Trump brand and the Canuckistani brand is sharp. Canadians are solidly in favour of the accelerated arrivals. The attendant smugness and posturing and gloating is appalling, but there you go. No one said we were nice, merely 'nice.'

Dr Hamo is an educated man. He is known as "The Scientist." He has a PhD in engineering. Send him back to the hellhole in Syria? What fucking idiots.

Another little Syrian boy, one who made it out alive, at a church in Toronto, with a coat given him by the Prime Minister. "Get him out of here. Get him out. Confiscate his coat."

Meanwhile, what we hear from so many Republican public figures is only “That boy was killed by Obama!” Obscene dishonest shouts piled on and on to distract from the moral depravity of their refusal of refugees to America.

I dunno. Despite the spasm of Know-Nothing nativism and fear and loathing, I see that American opinion is roughly in line with American values, if not New York values. In one sounding, Americans rejected the Muslim ban by a two-to-one margin. Polls.

In another sounding, 83% of Republicans said the USA should take zero Syrian Muslim refugees. Polls.

Ayn Rand (and really millions of Americans) would smile to Canada and the others like it in saving these people.

I dunno. All we have is a short remark about her own journey from oppression to freedom -- and the ARI line on 'open immigration, within reason.' As anti-semitic Mark has noted, the ARI line on reasonable limits aligns with the new nativism. Sigh.

What I don't get is why more GOP folks and Trump supporters don't think things through and attempt more rational and comprehensive analyses of risk and reward. You know, 'figure out what's going on.' The Syrian refugee issue is unfortunately folded in with demagoguery and the irrational aspects of electioneering. When emotions run high, slogans can replace thought. When emotions run high in a campaign, the race to the bottom is on.

My scorecard for the Thursday debate:

Edited January 16, 2016 by william.scherk

[moralist]

Stephen writes:

Rand conceived creationhuman creation, the type of creation that actually existsas a rearrangement of existents already available in some form.

That's building... not creating, Stephen. And it's not minimizing man's acts... but rather putting them in a proper, less narcissistic context.

Secularists by default are forced to call building "creating"... because by default of rejecting anything greater than themselves, they have to reject the objective reality of something created from nothing... like the universe.

I realize that this resolves nothing. Two antithetical views will always exist.

Each of us freely chooses... and each of us gets exactly what they deserve as the result of their choice.

Greg

[merjet]

Stephen writes:

Rand conceived creationhuman creation, the type of creation that actually existsas a rearrangement of existents already available in some form.

That's building... not creating, Stephen.

No, Stephen did not write that. He wrote:

. Rand conceived creation—human creation, the type of creation that actually exists—as a rearrangement of existents already available in some form.

I'm starting to think that Greg's mindset is often stuck in the Middle Ages. That is, before the creation* of calculus, telephones, cars, airplanes, and computers.

* create - to make something new or original that did not exist before (link)

[moralist]

Merlin wrote:

No, Stephen did not write that. He wrote:

Stephen quoted that because he believes it.

I'm starting to think that Greg's mindset is often stuck in the Middle Ages. That is, before the creation* of calculus, telephones, cars, airplanes, and computers.

Understanding that technology is built and not created doesn't prevent me from enjoying its benefits. It's just minus the puffed up toady secularist intellectual narcissism of believing that man is a god who can create.

* create - to make something new or original that did not exist before (link)

Yes. That's the secular narcissistic definition that rejects anything greater than itself. and I fully realize that's the dominant cultural view.

There's another technology: Divine moral law. And a person can build a whole life on its foundation. Happiness, prosperity, meaningful endeavors are ALL within reach REGARDLESS of the level of technology.

Technology is just a tool... useless and even destructive when people do evil... useful and constructive when they do good...

...but it's all building and not creating...

...because creating is an act reserved for God... not man.

Greg

[Peter]

William opined about his scorecard for the Thursday debate, and then he showed pictures of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio but the others had superimposed skeletal features.

I agree. And I agree that the campaign will be more informative and make it more likely that a Republican will win in the general election with just those three in the race. And we are not alone.
Peter


Analysis: Trump, Cruz, Rubio Pull Away From Pack at Charleston Debate, by Guy Benson | Jan 15, 2016 CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA - With the important caveat that not a single vote has been cast in any state firmly in place, the 2016 GOP primary increasingly feels like a three-man race. Last night, the trio of candidates at the top of the polls turned in strong performances; each man helped himself while dispensing and absorbing some hard jabs . . . .

[Jules Troy]

Q-carbon looks fascinating!

I wonder though...is it as hard as Greg's head?

[moralist]

Jules writes:
Q-carbon looks fascinating!

I wonder though...is it as hard as Greg's head?

I'm happy to accept that as a compliment, Jules.

I'm totally positive that I chose the right direction for my life,
and I'm enjoying the results today which have confirmed my choice.

Can't get any more hardheaded than that.


Greg

[Jules Troy]

Onward christian soldier!

Lol

[Peter]

Greg never needed a helmet. I wonder how he would do at a Town Hall meeting? I have a hunch that if he had been born in Iran he would be in the Republican Guard. The only thing that would matter would be the indoctrination.

[moralist]

Peter writes:

Greg never needed a helmet. I wonder how he would do at a Town Hall meeting?

You'll never find me at a government gas bag town hall meeting, because petitioning government is never the answer.

Only individual action taken on a personal level solves issues...

...and only for the person who acts.

I have a hunch that if he had been born in Iran he would be in the Republican Guard. The only thing that would matter would be the indoctrination.

You're more than welcome to entertain that fantasy if you find it useful for you to validate your own view. Everyone faults the view they did not choose... and only the objective reality of how each of our own lives unfolds is letting each of us know individually in no uncertain terms how valid our own chosen view was.

Greg

[atlashead]

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Peter said:

Brant wrote: One's mouth, one's mind, never trumps reality. It can only be coincident. You cannot argue from an impossible frame of reference.
end quantum

Aaaargh!

Peter Brown. Nothing implied.

Scientists just saw light coming out of a black hole for the first time By Lulu Chang 4 hours ago

In epitomizing darkness, few natural phenomena do the job better than black holes. After all, with their inexorable gravitational pull, nothing, not even light, can be seen … right? Well, mostly. Last week, for the first time ever, scientists observed visible light emanating from within a black hole with naught more than a 20 cm. telescope. Forget everything you know — science is always rewriting itself.

Apparently, the rather beautiful phenomena occurs when, as the Guardian explains, “material from surrounding space falls into them and releases violent bursts of light.” Essentially, when some matter is sucked into one of these massive pits of gravity, they emit an incredible amount of energy, which can manifest itself as light. And when this happens, it looks like we’re seeing light coming out of a black hole.

Back in June of 2015, a team of scientists led by Mariko Kimura of Kyoto University, became the first to ever see this sort of light through a telescope when a black hole named V404 Cygni, one of the closest to planet Earth, began showing activity after lying dormant for 26 years. Around every six and a half days, Cygni and its partner star (a celestial body a bit smaller than the sun) would circle one another, and when the black hole came to life again, it began feasting on the star. For two weeks, the astronomers were able to see flashes of light — some lasting just minutes, while others continued for several hours — as Cygni worked its magic.

“We find that activity in the vicinity of a black hole can be observed in optical light at low luminosity for the first time,” researcher Mariko Kimura told Space.com. “These findings suggest that we can study physical phenomena that occur in the vicinity of the black hole using moderate optical telescopes without high-spec X-ray or gamma-ray telescopes.”

Expected.  Matter is just a bunch of geometries* in space with different personalities.

edit: it's just a matter of time 1 gets kicked out of the group XD

[BaalChatzaf]

On 1/11/2016 at 0:27 AM, Peter said:

Brant wrote: One's mouth, one's mind, never trumps reality. It can only be coincident. You cannot argue from an impossible frame of reference.
end quantum

Aaaargh!

Peter Brown. Nothing implied.

Scientists just saw light coming out of a black hole for the first time By Lulu Chang 4 hours ago

In epitomizing darkness, few natural phenomena do the job better than black holes. After all, with their inexorable gravitational pull, nothing, not even light, can be seen … right? Well, mostly. Last week, for the first time ever, scientists observed visible light emanating from within a black hole with naught more than a 20 cm. telescope. Forget everything you know — science is always rewriting itself.

Apparently, the rather beautiful phenomena occurs when, as the Guardian explains, “material from surrounding space falls into them and releases violent bursts of light.” Essentially, when some matter is sucked into one of these massive pits of gravity, they emit an incredible amount of energy, which can manifest itself as light. And when this happens, it looks like we’re seeing light coming out of a black hole.

Back in June of 2015, a team of scientists led by Mariko Kimura of Kyoto University, became the first to ever see this sort of light through a telescope when a black hole named V404 Cygni, one of the closest to planet Earth, began showing activity after lying dormant for 26 years. Around every six and a half days, Cygni and its partner star (a celestial body a bit smaller than the sun) would circle one another, and when the black hole came to life again, it began feasting on the star. For two weeks, the astronomers were able to see flashes of light — some lasting just minutes, while others continued for several hours — as Cygni worked its magic.

“We find that activity in the vicinity of a black hole can be observed in optical light at low luminosity for the first time,” researcher Mariko Kimura told Space.com. “These findings suggest that we can study physical phenomena that occur in the vicinity of the black hole using moderate optical telescopes without high-spec X-ray or gamma-ray telescopes.”

Here is what was seen:

From:  http://www.space.com/31532-black-hole-visible-light-telescope-discovery.html

"For the first time, astronomers have seen dim flickers of visible light from near a black hole, researchers with an international science team said. In fact, the light could be visible to anyone with a moderate-size telescope."

This is most likely visible radiation from the event horizon.  The only stuff that is radiated by a Black Hole is Hawking Radiation and that  really does not come from -inside- the Black Hole.  Please see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

[BaalChatzaf]

On 1/11/2016 at 0:27 AM, Peter said:

Brant wrote: One's mouth, one's mind, never trumps reality. It can only be coincident. You cannot argue from an impossible frame of reference.
end quantum

Aaaargh!

Peter Brown. Nothing implied.

Scientists just saw light coming out of a black hole for the first time By Lulu Chang 4 hours ago

In epitomizing darkness, few natural phenomena do the job better than black holes. After all, with their inexorable gravitational pull, nothing, not even light, can be seen … right? Well, mostly. Last week, for the first time ever, scientists observed visible light emanating from within a black hole with naught more than a 20 cm. telescope. Forget everything you know — science is always rewriting itself.

Apparently, the rather beautiful phenomena occurs when, as the Guardian explains, “material from surrounding space falls into them and releases violent bursts of light.” Essentially, when some matter is sucked into one of these massive pits of gravity, they emit an incredible amount of energy, which can manifest itself as light. And when this happens, it looks like we’re seeing light coming out of a black hole.

Back in June of 2015, a team of scientists led by Mariko Kimura of Kyoto University, became the first to ever see this sort of light through a telescope when a black hole named V404 Cygni, one of the closest to planet Earth, began showing activity after lying dormant for 26 years. Around every six and a half days, Cygni and its partner star (a celestial body a bit smaller than the sun) would circle one another, and when the black hole came to life again, it began feasting on the star. For two weeks, the astronomers were able to see flashes of light — some lasting just minutes, while others continued for several hours — as Cygni worked its magic.

“We find that activity in the vicinity of a black hole can be observed in optical light at low luminosity for the first time,” researcher Mariko Kimura told Space.com. “These findings suggest that we can study physical phenomena that occur in the vicinity of the black hole using moderate optical telescopes without high-spec X-ray or gamma-ray telescopes.”

They saw light coming from -near- a Black Hole.  Most likely from the Event Horizon.

Please see:  http://www.space.com/31532-black-hole-visible-light-telescope-discovery.html

Black Holes have such convoluted  internal geometries that photons cannot come out from a black hole. 

[Peter]

Is a “black hole” eternal? Will they continue to unite until there is a super massive singularity? Or will matter disperse . . . forever, as in the theory of an expanding universe? Life cannot exist in a black hole but it can exist in dispersed space so as a proponent of life, I am emotionally drawn to dispersal, reunification, and more dispersals. And for life to fully understand the universe. I predict we will reach a point where civilization and knowledge is guaranteed to continue existence even if a catastrophe occurs.  

Peter

 

From “The Universe in a Nutshell,” by Stephen Hawking: Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proven to be correct. On the other hand, if the observations disagree with the predictions, one has to discard or modify the theory.  (At least, that is supposed to happen. In practice, people often question the accuracy of the observations and the reliability and moral character of those making the observations.)  If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes. end quote