Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Apr, 2005 09:03 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
"If you have nothing nice to say about anyone, come here and sit by me. -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth"


What was up with Alice?


Theodore Roosevelt went away to Harvard, and in 1876 his father, Theodore Roosevelt, Sr., died. He was emotionally devestated. Shortly after returning to school, he met Alice Lee, and fell deeply in love (or so he felt, at any rate). The conjunction of emotional events seems important to many biographers. T.R. married Alice Lee, and in 1881, published his The Naval War of 1812 to modest acclaim and success, and entered the New York State Assembly, beginning his political career. He appears to have felt that his life were idyllic. A few years later, however, as she was about to be delivered of their child, Alice fell ill (i don't recall the cause-perhaps typhus or typhoid fever) and T.R.'s mother fell it with the same disease at the same time. They both died in less than 24 hours, and T.R. was once again devasted.

The child was born healthy, however. T.R. soon left his political career and took a long hunting trip in the West with his brother. He left his new daughter, Alice Lee Roosevelt in the care of his sister Bamie (her name was Anne Roosevelt, but for reasons i do not know, was called Bamie). There is a very touching photograph of the three year old Alice standing by Bamie, who is seated in a wing chair, and they both are wearing expensive women's outer wear of the era, and poor little Alice looks into the camera very solemnly. T.R. got taken up with the Dakotas, and decided to become a cattle rancher. He was wiped out in the horrible winter of 1886-87, as was most of the Dakota cattle industry. When he had returned east for the political season of 1886, he had met again his "childhood sweetheart," Edith Kermit Carrow, whom one might allege he had "dumped" for Alice Lee. They became close again, and married in 1886. Little Alice Lee, known generally at that time as Baby Alice, was just past her second birthday.

T.R. returned east permanently, and restarted his political career. Edith and he produced many children, and at her insistence, Alice joined his family. T.R. seems never to have been able to discipline Alice (and he was very strict with the boys, even though given to irreverent michief himself), beyond prohibiting criminality. Alice was seventeen when the family moved 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and she plunged into Washington social life with a passion. She stayed out all night with the boys, drinking champagne with them, and caused other scandals, such as smoking cigarettes in public. She was a national celebrity in nation which loved its President, in the days before movie stars--they called her Princess Alice. She loved to wear a certain deep shade of light blue, and it is known to this day as Alice Blue. A popular song was also written about her, Alice Blue Gown. So when the Chief Justice sugested to T.R. that he "do something about Alice," that was his response, and likely not delivered in too pleasant a manner. Alice was very intelligent, was well educated, and was married off to a party hack, Nicholas Longworth, from Ohio. He seems to have been something of a playboy, or thought himself so. They had a daughter, Paulina, with whom she had stormy relations. She remained cynical and witty throughout her long life, dying in 1980 at the age of 96. Throughout her life, her home was an informal meeting ground for Republicans, at least until Nixon was elected. She was often referred to as "the other Washington monument." I would have liked very much to have spent a few hours conversing with her.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Apr, 2005 09:23 am
Setanta wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
"If you have nothing nice to say about anyone, come here and sit by me. -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth"


What was up with Alice?

...She stayed out all night with the boys, drinking champagne with them, and caused other scandals, such as smoking cigarettes in public. She was a national celebrity in nation which loved its President, in the days before movie stars--they called her Princess Alice. She loved to wear a certain deep shade of light blue, and it is known to this day as Alice Blue. A popular song was also written about her, Alice Blue Gown. So when the Chief Justice sugested to T.R. that he "do something about Alice," that was his response, and likely not delivered in too pleasant a manner.


Excellent story Set Smile I think you just made this whole thread worth the effort. Smile

Thx,
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Apr, 2005 11:38 am
Re: Evolution? How?
CodeBorg wrote:
In the first post,
vol_fan06 wrote:
What makes Evolution so believable. Just because a bunch of scientists tell you it is. It is a theory, an idea, a guess. Why?
...
I seem to find a lot more truth from the Bible and not what a bunch of scientists tell me. come on seriously how believable is all the "scientific" stuff they say is right. a monkey turning in to a man? A big bang and the world was formed? How did the stuff that collided get formed?


(emphasis mine)
AHA! Thank you for asking this! Seriously, the question just made me realize ...

It has nothing to do with being believable. Scientists never ask anyone to believe an idea, theory, or model.

It's only to do with being useful and predictable. If we can use
even a "false" theory or "false" fact, then hey it is productive.
It produces consistent, applicable results. That's all.

When a scientific theory can be used to predict things that we
otherwise would not have discovered, then it is useful. The
theory gains credibility and is a little more "proven".


Thanks CodeB.

I wanted to go back to this idea to try to explore it and focus it.

I wonder how a creation/evolution debate would proceed if we made "useful and predictable" the basis of validity, rather than "absolute knowledge" which seem to be the sticking point in so many of these debates.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 11:45 am
I have not replied because I have needed a day to think about the astrology/evolution thing... In the process I think I have proven that there are no black holes...

My thoughts began with the idea that light has traveled billions of years to reach the earth... Light travels in straight lines (linear) at least the light I am familiar with...... If there were black holes dotting the universe they would have wiped away all traces of light from reaching the earth over time... So in my new found opinion black holes do not exist at all. Entire solar systems would disappear and re-appear with regularity...

As for astrology... I believe if there is any truth to it, it would be in regard to the starlight light that has been bombarding the earth for billions of years... This light has been of great consequence to the earth as is the moon and the sun...

Conclusion, the earth is a mirror of the heavens due to this starlight's interaction with evolution...

Another note on Walt Disney...

Writer: Leigh Harline; Lyrics: Ned Washington

When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you

If your heart is in your dreams, no request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star as dreamers do

(Fate is kind, she brings to those who love
The sweet fulfillment of their secret longing)

Like a bolt out of the blue, fate steps in and sees you thru
When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 11:51 am
Light travels in straight lines, unless and until it encounters a powerful gravitational field, which is in fact one of the reasons black holes were discovered.

The only positive thing i can find to say is that you are persistent. Don't let a little thing like plausibility stand in your way. If you want to believe in astrology, you go ahead on. If you object to being laughed to ridicule, then don't mention it around here.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 12:01 pm
ayup...

Statements like this...

Quote:
I have not replied because I have needed a day to think about the astrology/evolution thing... In the process I think I have proven that there are no black holes...


...don't do much for credibility or for being taken seriously. The case for the existence of black holes is not at all open and shut -- but certainly observations have been made that are consistent with the existence of black holes, and greater minds belonging to people that have dedicated to their lives to the study of such phenomenon cannot so readily dismiss the possibility.

At any rate, as setanta has observed, light does not always travel in straight lines, and an object as massive as a black hole is not required to observe this. In fact, Einstein's prediction that light should bend around massive objects (that is, objects with mass, so the word "massive" could be omitted altogether) has been confirmed by observations of stars "near" (in angular terms) our own sun during solar eclipse. You might as well say that other galaxies don't exist because they would be blocked out by stars in our own vicinity. You might observe by looking up at night that most of the sky appears empty. ("I can see for miles and miles.") Not every second of sky has something blocking it out in the immediate astronomical vicinity. The fact that you can see other things does not, I'm afraid, disprove the existence of black holes.

Perhaps a basic astronomy reader would be in order, too...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 12:09 pm
Setanta wrote:
Light travels in straight lines, unless and until it encounters a powerful gravitational field, which is in fact one of the reasons black holes were discovered.

The only positive thing i can find to say is that you are persistent. Don't let a little thing like plausibility stand in your way. If you want to believe in astrology, you go ahead on. If you object to being laughed to ridicule, then don't mention it around here.


I might remind you we are in a religious/science thread... Smile

Thanks for complimenting me on my persistence... But I might add that you put science education with theology education and they pull on you and do not let your mind rest till it sees all of the unique common possibilities...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 12:17 pm
patiodog wrote:
ayup...

Statements like this...

Quote:
I have not replied because I have needed a day to think about the astrology/evolution thing... In the process I think I have proven that there are no black holes...


...don't do much for credibility or for being taken seriously. The case for the existence of black holes is not at all open and shut -- but certainly observations have been made that are consistent with the existence of black holes, and greater minds belonging to people that have dedicated to their lives to the study of such phenomenon cannot so readily dismiss the possibility.

At any rate, as setanta has observed, light does not always travel in straight lines, and an object as massive as a black hole is not required to observe this. In fact, Einstein's prediction that light should bend around massive objects (that is, objects with mass, so the word "massive" could be omitted altogether) has been confirmed by observations of stars "near" (in angular terms) our own sun during solar eclipse. You might as well say that other galaxies don't exist because they would be blocked out by stars in our own vicinity. You might observe by looking up at night that most of the sky appears empty. ("I can see for miles and miles.") Not every second of sky has something blocking it out in the immediate astronomical vicinity. The fact that you can see other things does not, I'm afraid, disprove the existence of black holes.

Perhaps a basic astronomy reader would be in order, too...


Star magnitude brightness would fluctuate radically if black holes were floating around in space... This reason alone totally negates any black hole theory...

Black holes and stars would have to remain fixed in one place through space over time... I believe galaxies and black holes would drift... red effect... and show clearly the presence of black holes through calculated fluctuations of light... Yet the light does not fluctuate and according some physicists I am not sure who though... light cannot escape a black hole... It would probably be drawn in rather than create a halo effect and bend to go around it like an obstruction of mass... Also for a mass to obstruct the light of a planet the wobble would be very slight and the mass would have to be of cataclysmic size...

You think for billions of light years this light traveled unobstructed through our universe to make it to the planet earth...

I am beginning to think that this light is almost like an alien visiting our earth.. I would not like to sell short the effect this "alien" light has had on our planet over billions of years...
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 12:29 pm
Quote:
Star magnitude brightness would fluctuate radically if black holes were floating around in space...


Why? What sort of time frame do you think we'd have to be watching a particular object to observe such a fluctuation?

Quote:
Black holes and stars would have to remain fixed in one place through space over time... I believe galaxies and black holes would drift... red effect... and show clearly the presence of black holes through calculated fluctuations of light... Yet the light does not fluctuate and according some physicists I am not sure who though... light cannot escape a black hole... It would probably be drawn in rather than create a halo effect and bend to go around it like an obstruction of mass... Also for a mass to obstruct the light of a planet the wobble would be very slight and the mass would have to be of cataclysmic size...


Much appreciated if you could clarify any of this. Every ellipse (...) appears to have been put somewhere where a sentence should be completed and isn't. Why are you talking about red effect (red shift, do ya mean?)? Are you thinking that black holes are the source of posited "dark matter," and so should be extremely numerous? Can you google anybody making a similar argument?





Or are you pulling legs?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 12:34 pm
patiodog wrote:
Quote:
Star magnitude brightness would fluctuate radically if black holes were floating around in space...


Why? What sort of time frame do you think we'd have to be watching a particular object to observe such a fluctuation?

Quote:
Black holes and stars would have to remain fixed in one place through space over time... I believe galaxies and black holes would drift... red effect... and show clearly the presence of black holes through calculated fluctuations of light... Yet the light does not fluctuate and according some physicists I am not sure who though... light cannot escape a black hole... It would probably be drawn in rather than create a halo effect and bend to go around it like an obstruction of mass... Also for a mass to obstruct the light of a planet the wobble would be very slight and the mass would have to be of cataclysmic size...


Much appreciated if you could clarify any of this. Every ellipse (...) appears to have been put somewhere where a sentence should be completed and isn't. Why are you talking about red effect (red shift, do ya mean?)? Are you thinking that black holes are the source of posited "dark matter," and so should be extremely numerous? Can you google anybody making a similar argument?





Or are you pulling legs?


Well the reason I brought it up was to get the reaction from you all... If I was so content on my own ideas I would not even bother to toss them up for other to comment on. So you are saying that light can travel light years successfully through the universe and not be obstructed by one black hole on the way and make it to the earth? Impossible...

I might note a red shift produces a red effect...
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 12:58 pm
Quote:
Impossible...


Why impossible? Most of the universe is empty. Why not say that other stars don't exist for the same reason? Or that nebulae don't exist? I can see the state capitol from my house, and it's about a 1.5 miles away. How come there's not so much stuff between me and it that I can't see it?

Theory has it that black holes come from neutron stars. We've identified 500 neutron stars in our general neighborhood (that is, our cluster of galaxies). ( http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_intro.html ) Black holes should be less numerous, I would think.

Now, let's do a little math. Let's make the outrageous assumption that a black hole would occupy a minute (1/60 of a degree) in the night sky. In a 180 degree arc from a point on the horizon directly to your right, through a point directly above your head, to a point on the horizon directly to your left, there are 180*60=10800 minutes. If you arrayed 100 black holes along this arc, they would occupy less than one percent of it. And that's just for a single arc. Rotate that arc around the entire night sky, and there are approximately 23.6 million square minutes visible in the night sky. (See calculation below.) How many black holes would you need to blot out such an area? (Remembering also that black holes are very small, and more distant objects occupy progressively smaller slices of our visual field.)

Minutes in 180 degree arc: 180*60=10,800
Radius of arc in "minutes": 10,800/3.1416=3,437.739
"Surface area"* of night sky in "square minutes": 2*3.1416*(3,437.739)^2=23,636,095




*Sorry, had to edit. First version said "volume," which was a brain fart.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 01:49 pm
the prints of black holes often include gamma bursts that seem to issue from every quadrant in the sky. The interpretation is that they reflect a "singularity' that occupies a few seconds of arc and are randomly occuring deaths of stars. We just experienced a beauty of one a few months ago. It was noticeable in the Se polar quad. Mapping gamma bursts has effectively taken the needed order out of Einstein and added to the randomness of "universe size quanta"
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 01:59 pm
I dunno my astronomy. Are there implications there for explaining why the universe isn't a homogenous mass of energy?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 02:01 pm
RexRed wrote:
I might remind you we are in a religious/science thread...


I know that full well--those who wish to denigrate the theory of evolution, to equate it with a statement of truth (theories are statements of probabilities, not truths--those who are not in the god-selling business don't necessarily automatically tout their theories as truth), deliver the most outrageous phoney refutation, and generally deny huge orders of scientific investigation in their desparation (and one hundred fifty years after Wallace and Darwin derived the theory, i mean to tell ya, the religionists are getting desparate) to deny the tenets of the theory of evolution--they almost always drop it off in the Spirituality & Religion Forum, because they think they will get away with it more easily. And, of course, they attempt to suggest that the superstitious fairy tales which are the basis of religious dogmas have the same intellectual value as scientific theory. I suppose one ought to consider it refreshing that you're positing astrology rather than theology; however, after having seen this for years at AFUZZ as well as this site, it gets tiresome. I watch threads like this run so the superstitious and the just plain intellectually goofy can have their fun, but every twice in a while, i like to drop by and piss all over the parade.

Quote:
Thanks for complimenting me on my persistence... But I might add that you put science education with theology education and they pull on you and do not let your mind rest till it sees all of the unique common possibilities...


See what i mean about equating theology and scientific investigation? What your are pleased to call "unique common possibilities" is nothing more that the "poet's fevered eye," and is equivalent to saying: "If i can imagine it, it might be possible." Which of course, can and quickly does lead to any sort of nonsense being proposed, straight-faced, as the gospel truth--pun intended.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 02:19 pm
The concept of the n-dimensional "Multiverse"that Johnathan Wheeler grappled with gives a more quieting , but no more intuitive hypotheses of where and what all the matter does and why there are singularities and how often do entire new universes begin and end.
Im no pro in this area either but follow the stories and hypotheses trying to find some hunk of flotsam around which my mind can leech.
Michio Kakus book on Parallel Universes was a gift in that its about the most accessible handling of the topic for the astrophysically challenged
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 03:21 pm
farmerman wrote:
The concept of the n-dimensional "Multiverse"that Johnathan Wheeler grappled with gives a more quieting , but no more intuitive hypotheses of where and what all the matter does and why there are singularities and how often do entire new universes begin and end.
Im no pro in this area either but follow the stories and hypotheses trying to find some hunk of flotsam around which my mind can leech.
Michio Kakus book on Parallel Universes was a gift in that its about the most accessible handling of the topic for the astrophysically challenged


Farmerman does it really seem scientifically logical to believe in all of these black holes when we see the light from stars so unobstructed coming to the earth over billions of light years travel?

It would almost prove likewise that space is so perfectly free of obstruction and distortion...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 03:30 pm
Setanta wrote:
RexRed wrote:
I might remind you we are in a religious/science thread...


I know that full well--those who wish to denigrate the theory of evolution, to equate it with a statement of truth (theories are statements of probabilities, not truths--those who are not in the god-selling business don't necessarily automatically tout their theories as truth), deliver the most outrageous phoney refutation, and generally deny huge orders of scientific investigation in their desparation (and one hundred fifty years after Wallace and Darwin derived the theory, i mean to tell ya, the religionists are getting desparate) to deny the tenets of the theory of evolution--they almost always drop it off in the Spirituality & Religion Forum, because they think they will get away with it more easily. And, of course, they attempt to suggest that the superstitious fairy tales which are the basis of religious dogmas have the same intellectual value as scientific theory. I suppose one ought to consider it refreshing that you're positing astrology rather than theology; however, after having seen this for years at AFUZZ as well as this site, it gets tiresome. I watch threads like this run so the superstitious and the just plain intellectually goofy can have their fun, but every twice in a while, i like to drop by and piss all over the parade.

Quote:
Thanks for complimenting me on my persistence... But I might add that you put science education with theology education and they pull on you and do not let your mind rest till it sees all of the unique common possibilities...


See what i mean about equating theology and scientific investigation? What your are pleased to call "unique common possibilities" is nothing more that the "poet's fevered eye," and is equivalent to saying: "If i can imagine it, it might be possible." Which of course, can and quickly does lead to any sort of nonsense being proposed, straight-faced, as the gospel truth--pun intended.



Genius sees the answer before the question... Oppenheimer
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 03:38 pm
RexRed wrote:
Farmerman does it really seem scientifically logical to believe in all of these black holes when we see the light from stars so unobstructed coming to the earth over billions of light years travel?

It would almost prove likewise that space is so perfectly free of obstruction and distortion...


Throwing quotes out to attain a cachet of wisdom for oneself is really a lame and a rather easy way to proceed . . . it is so easily done . . .

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

See how easy it is?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 03:42 pm
Can you tell me, rexred, why my explanation of why a few black holes among galaxies in the vast emptiness of space don't blot anything out is insufficient? Can you refute it? There's no advanced science in it whatsoever, just simple geometry...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 03:46 pm
patiodog wrote:
Can you tell me, rexred, why my explanation of why a few black holes among galaxies in the vast emptiness of space don't blot anything out is insufficient? Can you refute it? There's no advanced science in it whatsoever, just simple geometry...


Well because they do not diffuse light they consume it... that is more unbelievable than astrology... and someone would have to answer why only a few... And over billions of light years travel they would distort the picture more... What we see in hubble is perfect with no distortions whatsoever...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 64
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 03:35:18