Keep Life in perspective...

[grahameb]

Space is infinite and expanding - but the expansion is into a dimension which you can't see.

Imagine you were a 2-dimensional being living on the surface of a balloon. As you're 2-dimensional you only have the concept of forward/backward and left/right (no up/down). So you can travel around the surface of your balloon forever - your space seems infinite as you could never reach an "edge" (although if it were a fixed sized balloon you would eventually end up back where you started).

Now imagine somebody is blowing up the balloon you live on - now your space would also be expanding. If there was a spot on the balloon an inch ahead of you, you would see it is getting further away as the balloon expands - but you don't have the concept of up/down, so all you see is the spot receding in the dimensions that you do understand - the reality is that rather than the spot moving away, more space is being added in between you and it.

That's kind of how it works.

Impossible!....Cos I wear spikes.

[bob]

I've deleted about three of mine.  Total garbage 

Perhaps we need a post-pub thread that automatically gets cleared down every morning at 5am?  :D

[bob]

Very interesting Bob.  I am not sure there is a connection between the two.  Why did you decide against becoming a barrister?

You don't play chess by any chance do you?  There does seem to be some connection between chess and astronomy. C.H.O'D. Alexander was well known in both circles.  Patrick Moore is a keen chess player.  I used to play for my County.

Sorry I didn't answer this before Neil...

I think maybe if we could have studied law at 6th form and I'd got good grades in it I might have been more likely to go into it - the same applied to medicine, where in retrospect I think I might have liked to go into that, but as it was, I was more familiar with what the day-to-day nitty gritty of physics was actually about, having studied it at school so I was more confident that it's something I would certainly enjoy doing more of.

As it is, I don't think being a barrister would have worked out for me - I would get too frustrated by the idea of juries being swayed by personalities, and prior prejudices during a trial, rather than being able to dispassionately analyse the evidence. It must also be difficult when you know you have a complex piece of important evidence that some jurors just can't be bothered to comprehend. I think the changes in the rules you described recently in another thread, whereby you can no longer challenge jury membership pre-trial, must have made this situation even worse. Do you find that side of things frustrating? (sorry, I know I'm going way off topic here!)

As for chess - I used to play at school and uni just for fun, but I realised that to be good you had to put in the bookwork rather than just wing it, and I was ultimately too lazy for that 

[Reader]

The plain facts are we can't entertain thoughts of how big the universe is. We just cannot comprehend it. Our finite minds simply do not have the capacity to think that big.

If "we" refers to you and me (at least), that's not plain fact at all, as I am entertaining thoughts of how big the universe is right now. By simply adding a few zeros to the end of various numbers involved, I can think of far bigger things as well.

It's beyond our reasoning powers. We cannot imagine infinity. It leaves no room for expansion.

You can't logically conclude "It leaves no room for expansion" without reasoning about infinity. Are there more than 10 grains of sand on earth? Yes. More than 10 thousand? Yes. More than 10 million? Yes. After a few more steps, the correct number is reached (give or take a factor of 1000). This demonstrates it's easy to think of quite large finite values. Now consider all the positions available for grains of sand on earth. That's easy, but there are infinitely many such positions, and still room for expansion. Moreover, there are numerous books that contain reasoning about such infinities. Their existence proves that reasoning about infinity can be done by humans. You can read them and do such reasoning too.

Why not accept that there may be an entity far more intelligent than ourselves who may indeed have created us?

Why not accept that the earth supports a large population of invisible unicorns or any other absurdity one can invent? Would you prefer visible unicorns? There are several references to unicorns in the Bible.

In fact logic tells us that an object only 8000 miles in diameter cannot remain molten at the centre (which the earth is) for millions of years.

Logic doesn't tell us that, and available evidence indicates the earth's centre is solid anyway.

I have discovered that he has never let me down.

That's logically compatible with his non-existence. Also, I would classify "letting you down" as including allowing you to declare as "fact" or "plain fact" various things that you shortly afterwards admit are mistakes.

Evolution also presupposes that things are getting better.

No, it doesn't, so your reasoning is fallacious.

It is all a mystery to me. Nothing is cut and dried, or put into pat theories.

Both "It is all a mystery to me" and "Nothing is cut and dried" are pat theories of yours, so your reasoning is again fallacious (even if those theories are correct, which is arguably logically impossible).

It's all beyond any of us for any of us to know definitely about these things.

And you definitely know that, do you? How come it's not beyond you to do so?

[Roch]

Perhaps we need a post-pub thread that automatically gets cleared down every morning at 5am?  :D

Good idea bob.  Think I'll stick to home made smoothies for a while.  (even though I'll probably have a pint after work, just to take the edge off last night) 

[Roch]

Why not accept that the earth supports a large population of invisible unicorns or any other absurdity one can invent? Would you prefer visible unicorns? There are several references to unicorns in the Bible.

Getting back to Cryptozoology, it has been suggested that 'Unicorn' sightings are related to Elasmotherium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium
 

[ngb1066]

Sorry I didn't answer this before Neil...

I think maybe if we could have studied law at 6th form and I'd got good grades in it I might have been more likely to go into it - the same applied to medicine, where in retrospect I think I might have liked to go into that, but as it was, I was more familiar with what the day-to-day nitty gritty of physics was actually about, having studied it at school so I was more confident that it's something I would certainly enjoy doing more of.

As it is, I don't think being a barrister would have worked out for me - I would get too frustrated by the idea of juries being swayed by personalities, and prior prejudices during a trial, rather than being able to dispassionately analyse the evidence. It must also be difficult when you know you have a complex piece of important evidence that some jurors just can't be bothered to comprehend. I think the changes in the rules you described recently in another thread, whereby you can no longer challenge jury membership pre-trial, must have made this situation even worse. Do you find that side of things frustrating? (sorry, I know I'm going way off topic here!)As for chess - I used to play at school and uni just for fun, but I realised that to be good you had to put in the bookwork rather than just wing it, and I was ultimately too lazy for that 

I would have found maths, physics and chemistry A levels more interesting than the English, Latin and Greek I took, believing them to be more suited to following with a law degree. Later I found law students who had taken science A levels and they experienced no disadvantage.  If I had taken science A levels I would almost certainly have continued with astronomy at university.
 
I did find the gradual erosion of long standing protections, such as the right to challenge jurors, frustrating.  It was also hard to come to terms with those cases where justice had clearly not been done.  Sometimes that could be remedied by appeal to a higher court, sometimes not.  The idea of justice to an extent being a lottery was something I found hard to accept.  The problem is that despite the obvious issues surrounding the jury system, it is hard to devise something which would produce better results.  I would certainly oppose judge only trials.

[bob]

I would have found maths, physics and chemistry A levels more interesting than the English, Latin and Greek I took, believing them to be more suited to following with a law degree. Later I found law students who had taken science A levels and they experienced no disadvantage.  If I had taken science A levels I would almost certainly have continued with astronomy at university.
 
I did find the gradual erosion of long standing protections, such as the right to challenge jurors, frustrating.  It was also hard to come to terms with those cases where justice had clearly not been done.  Sometimes that could be remedied by appeal to a higher court, sometimes not.  The idea of justice to an extent being a lottery was something I found hard to accept.  The problem is that despite the obvious issues surrounding the jury system, it is hard to devise something which would produce better results.  I would certainly oppose judge only trials.

Do you think there's any mileage in the idea of "professional "jurors Neil, or would that just be another avenue open to possible corruption?

I can see the argument for having them in complex fraud cases and other areas where already having a good grounding in the area being tried would be helpful, but I can't see how it could work for general crime.

One area that might be worth exploring is the idea of a professional set of "jurors" to analyse all forensic evidence in a case - forensics now seem so fundamental a part of evidence  that it seems odd that you can end up just having two opposing expert witnesses giving evidence, where the reality of the situation might be that 11 out of 12 expert witnesses would agree on the reliability of a specific test. Taking the JB case as an example - if he finds a photographic expert to challenge the crown's view of events, and the prosecution then put one up to counter the defence's new arguments, does that not give undue weight to one position or the other - the odds are that it isn't really a 50-50 issue - if there were 20 photographic experts looking at the pictures, I doubt they would line up 10-10 in their conclusions, but that isn't reflected at trial is it? Or is there some way you can introduce the idea that "we have 19 other experts willing to testify the same" (P.S. you might want to use your mod. superpowers to split this now-way-of--topic discussion into a new thread  :D )

[ngb1066]

Do you think there's any mileage in the idea of "professional "jurors Neil, or would that just be another avenue open to possible corruption?

I can see the argument for having them in complex fraud cases and other areas where already having a good grounding in the area being tried would be helpful, but I can't see how it could work for general crime.

One area that might be worth exploring is the idea of a professional set of "jurors" to analyse all forensic evidence in a case - forensics now seem so fundamental a part of evidence  that it seems odd that you can end up just having two opposing expert witnesses giving evidence, where the reality of the situation might be that 11 out of 12 expert witnesses would agree on the reliability of a specific test. Taking the JB case as an example - if he finds a photographic expert to challenge the crown's view of events, and the prosecution then put one up to counter the defence's new arguments, does that not give undue weight to one position or the other - the odds are that it isn't really a 50-50 issue - if there were 20 photographic experts looking at the pictures, I doubt they would line up 10-10 in their conclusions, but that isn't reflected at trial is it? Or is there some way you can introduce the idea that "we have 19 other experts willing to testify the same" (P.S. you might want to use your mod. superpowers to split this now-way-of--topic discussion into a new thread  :D )

The problem with having "professional" jurors is that we then move away from the fundamental principle of a defendant being tried by his peers.  In most cases the task of the jury is to decide which witnesses are telling the truth, and what inferences can be drawn from the evidence as a whole.  That requires common sense and experience of life rather than any specialist knowledge.  It is the job of counsel to explain the issues in a case so that lay people can understand them.  Although that can be difficult, for example in complex fraud trials, it is not impossible.  I accept the difficulty with scientific evidence.  There have been many cases where scientific evidence has been of paramount importance.  In my own experience expert witnesses tend to be treated with too much deference in court.  When a scientist expresses confidence in a conclusion it is very hard to shake him, yet we know of cases (such as the Birmingham 6) where deeply flawed scientific evidence has led to a terrible miscarriage of justice.  I do not know what the answer is to this.  It is true as you point out that in court you may have a single expert witness for each side giving opposing views, but the balance of scientific opinion may be strongly in favour of one view.  That can to an extent be explored before the jury by reference to published works or even by calling more than one expert witness. 

[grahameb]

If "we" refers to you and me (at least), that's not plain fact at all, as I am entertaining thoughts of how big the universe is right now. By simply adding a few zeros to the end of various numbers involved, I can think of far bigger things as well.
You can't logically conclude "It leaves no room for expansion" without reasoning about infinity. Are there more than 10 grains of sand on earth? Yes. More than 10 thousand? Yes. More than 10 million? Yes. After a few more steps, the correct number is reached (give or take a factor of 1000). This demonstrates it's easy to think of quite large finite values. Now consider all the positions available for grains of sand on earth. That's easy, but there are infinitely many such positions, and still room for expansion. Moreover, there are numerous books that contain reasoning about such infinities. Their existence proves that reasoning about infinity can be done by humans. You can read them and do such reasoning too.
Why not accept that the earth supports a large population of invisible unicorns or any other absurdity one can invent? Would you prefer visible unicorns? There are several references to unicorns in the Bible.
Logic doesn't tell us that, and available evidence indicates the earth's centre is solid anyway.
That's logically compatible with his non-existence. Also, I would classify "letting you down" as including allowing you to declare as "fact" or "plain fact" various things that you shortly afterwards admit are mistakes.
No, it doesn't, so your reasoning is fallacious.
Both "It is all a mystery to me" and "Nothing is cut and dried" are pat theories of yours, so your reasoning is again fallacious (even if those theories are correct, which is arguably logically impossible).
And you definitely know that, do you? How come it's not beyond you to do so?

If you say that reader then it must be true. If you're so fond of referring to the Bible let me give you a couple of verses from it. (Proverbs 26:4)

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Now I wasn't going to let it get this serious. That's why I deleted one of my posts because I thought it sounded pompous. But after reading your post just now I discovered that my post could never be as pompous as yours.
(Romans 1:21-25)

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful ; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened . 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools , 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator , who is blessed for ever.

You have done well grasshopper. But you have yet much to learn. But for that to happen a person must humble himself. I stated that I am a Calvinist. That means I believe in the sovereignty of God. So your arguments to me are just nonsense and full of contradictions. If you can't see those contradictions then I cannot be bothered to point them out to you. And because I am a Calvinist nothing you say can phase me because I know they are the ramblings of someone who is full of his own importance.

[Reader]

I wasn't intending pomposity. The main points were not regarding Calvinism or the like, but about such things as claims regarding the cooling of the earth, that were given without any explanation or reasoning. Even if they were correct, they wouldn't be obvious. Stars can take billions of years to burn out, so why can't the earth, which is well-insulated and has additional heat being generated all the time, also stay hot inside for billions of years? There are numerous signs of ancient volcanic activity on Earth, and such activity implies a hot interior. Why attack me with ad hominems, such as your suggestion that I am "fond of referring to the Bible" after I'd mentioned it just once? I'm not attacking your religion or making sweeping generalizations, just pointing out that you've made specific claims of fact that seem to be, or have already been admitted to be, mistakes or illogical, and in making those claims you more than once used the word "we" to suggest the agreement of others could be taken for granted.

[Reader]

He [Einstein] was a Jew so he would have an inbred consciousness of God.

Was that intended as a joke? It comes across as somewhat racist.

[Reader]

In fact, logic tells us . . . that an object only 8000 miles in diameter cannot remain molten at the centre (which the earth is) . . .

The earth's solid core is not tiny - it's about three quarters the size of the moon, and is very hot (c. 6000 degrees Celsius). Its solidity is evident from its magnetic field and how well it transmits seismic waves. However, that solidity is not because Earth is "only" 8000 miles in diameter; it's possible because the large mass of Earth causes very high pressure within the core, allowing it to be solid despite its high temperature. A documentary programme about Earth's core was repeated just recently on the Eden channel.

[killingeve]

The earth's solid core is not tiny - it's about three quarters the size of the moon, and is very hot (c. 6000 degrees Celsius). Its solidity is evident from its magnetic field and how well it transmits seismic waves. However, that solidity is not because Earth is "only" 8000 miles in diameter; it's possible because the large mass of Earth causes very high pressure within the core, allowing it to be solid despite its high temperature. A documentary programme about Earth's core was repeated just recently on the Eden channel.

Hi Reader

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agfX4pJs-vo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
 
 

[grahameb]

The earth's solid core is not tiny - it's about three quarters the size of the moon, and is very hot (c. 6000 degrees Celsius). Its solidity is evident from its magnetic field and how well it transmits seismic waves. However, that solidity is not because Earth is "only" 8000 miles in diameter; it's possible because the large mass of Earth causes very high pressure within the core, allowing it to be solid despite its high temperature. A documentary programme about Earth's core was repeated just recently on the Eden channel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core