₦airaland Forum

iPopAlomo:
I'm siding with caution... it's either its a clever magic trick or some supernatural stunt... but assuming that an egg was squeezed into the bottle with countless theories that no one has tried is what I won't side with... to me... its a mystery... and I'll love to know how... at the same time... I won't push it... I'm open to being disproved...

Oh, then we are more in agreement than we are in disagreement. I too, side with caution! Seeing as we both are men of caution, wouldn't you agree that it isn't cautious to claim that what you saw in that video was raw egg, when it could very equally have been cleverly pigmented boiled egg or hard boiled egg in a shell?

Note that I haven't claimed it is any of those things out of caution, but you have momentarily - perhaps also unintentionally - thrown caution to the wind when you said you believe it's raw egg because you watched the video.

Would you now concede, out of caution, that there's nothing in that video that suggests it is raw egg?

Ioseph:
Everywhere over Africa it's the same old same old.
(Buhari himself married his wife when she was 12! The leader of the largest nation in Africa, Nigeria, is a PEDOPHILE!)

Is this true?

shaybebaby:
Buenos dias. Completely zonked out last night after just two hours sleep the night before.

Must be quite unsettling for you, I imagine. I respect your need to protect yourself and your family.

Buenos dias! Hope you got much needed rest.

It is a mildly irritating inconvenience, but I have grown rather used to it.

shaybebaby:
Buenos dias. Completely zonked out last night after just two hours sleep the night before.

Must be quite unsettling for you, I imagine. I respect your need to protect yourself and your family.

Buenos dias!

It is a mildly irritating inconvenience, but I have grown rather used to it.

iPopAlomo:
An hard boiled egg within a shell makes it impossible to pull the stunt... thats why I'm sticking to egg white and yoke within a shell... but alas! you get me... so we can move on...

If this were a supernatural activity, I doubt it would make a difference if it were hard boiled or raw egg. So are we both working with the theory that this is a clever magic trick as opposed to a supernatural event?

iPopAlomo:
You do know... by raw egg... I mean egg white and yoke within a shell...

do you get that first before we move on... until you do... we can't relate on anything...

Yes, I get that, but hard boiled egg can also be within a shell. So assuming there's a shell do you agree that there's no way of telling whether that's raw or boiled?
The alternative is that you don't know if it's raw egg, but you believe it's egg within a shell. I believe this is your meaning, correct?

iPopAlomo:
Because I watched the video...

Makes the both of us! Yet it is not so obvious in that video that it's raw egg. I bet neither of us saw the raw egg fluid flow out in that video.
I asked you another question though: Can you think of a hypothetical reason why that's not raw egg?

iPopAlomo:
try it with raw egg... upload the pics on nairaland and quote me... thanks...

Do you think the one above is raw egg? If so why? Can you think of a hypothetical reason why it may not be raw egg?

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/7a/cb/b7/7acbb7e239a4f1fc2d089cfc6398b57d.jpg

shaybebaby:
Truly fascinating stuff you wrote up there and yes I did grasp most of it based on secondary school biology(cones and rods in our eyes) hence not wondering if you meant traffic cones.

Right on! There you go! Knew you had it in you.

I'll have to assume that so far, the tech isn't yet cost effective enough, there is greater use of wind farms here.

Well, let's just say there's yet much ground to cover.

I may have the wrong element here but I recall reading something along the lines of uranium being much cleaner and more efficient (barring safe disposal of waste) than all other methods of generating energy. What you know about that?

Indeed, nuclear fission of Uranium atoms is perhaps the most efficient way to generate energy on Earth. Per gram, you'll easily get about 2 million times the energy you get from coal and oil; even way more than that compared to wind and solar. It is also much cleaner than coal and oil but not as clean as solar, wind or hydroelectric generation. The reason is the absence of proper disposal means of nuclear waste like you mentioned. This is a very huge problem because Uranium, once split, emits a dangerous kind of light called gamma ray. Gamma ray is an ionising radiation that can interact with the very nucleons that make up elements. It will therefore rapidly cause the disintegration of biomolecules. So it shouldn't be anywhere near living things. Well, this is why nuclear isn't a good long term energy investment. As the wastes pile up, so too does the risk of severe health and safety repercussions.

If they know you well enough offline, they should be able to spot you from the way you come across. My brother read a rant of mine on here and knew it was me even though I had never mentioned that I was active on here. Did know he was even aware of this forum.

Either ways, why do you care? Do you, YOLO!

My fear isn't of people who know me well enough. See, I come from a Muslim background, and there are yet those among my acquaintances from years past who are dangerously fanatical. I fear what they're capable of doing to me or my family, should my identity be revealed, and I don't feel particularly inclined to provide them with fodder to feed the embers of their fanaticism, until I'm confident we're out of their unpredictable reach. The struggle is real my sister!

shaybebaby:
Okay, I'm the slow one here. I know the meaning of the individual words up there, together though.. I'm lost.
What would be the practical application of the bolded?

Think of matter as subatomic particles like protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. Now, when matter condenses, it becomes many interesting things like atoms, molecules, compounds, crystals, polymers, membranes, tissues, cells, organs, living things, planets, stars and pretty much every physical entity you can imagine. So condensed matter physics is interested in explaining why these subatomic particles behave in the way they behave and express themselves in all these different ways. It is, itself, fundamental science, so it will be a great disservice to pin it down to any sort of practical applications. Yet, the field has proven to be extremely practical in many ways, and I will get to that promtply.

First, I'll quickly gist you about the optical properties of matter. Now, we all have this insatiable curiosity about the universe. Why not? It is a remarkable, marvelous and awesome place, yet shrouded in such delicious mystery that yearns for illumination! Yes! Illumination! Everything boils down to illumination. If you ever were to understand anything about this universe, you must start with light (the bible got this much correct). Light is everything! All matter interacts with light in one way or another. It could be absorbed, reflected, transmitted or radiated. You see something, call it condensed matter, because the cone cells in your eyes absorb light (electromagnetic energy in scientific jargon), converts the energy to electric signals which then paint some kind of picture in your brain that approximates the matter you saw. That condensed matter though, you only saw it for one of two reasons: either it radiated or reflected certain wavelengths of electromagnetic energy which your cone cells are sensitive to. Radiation and reflection occur because the atoms and electrons in the matter are somehow conserving energy. Somethings, you don't see because they transmit light, or they radiate light that aren't within the sensitivity range of your cone cells. The bottom line is that every single matter, from the smallest atom to the biggest star, (even you, yourself) has particular optical properties that can help us to understand its behaviour better, thus inching us ever closer to illuminating the mysteries of the universe.

You asked for practical applications. I will give you some:

(1) How do we know the elements that make up stars: No one has ever been to a star before, so we have no business knowing what stars are made up of, right? Well, recall that I mentioned that every single matter has particular optical signatures that can help us to understand its behaviour better? It turns out the certain elements, when hot, emit very specific colours of light, and when cold, they absorb the same specific colours.
Hydrogen, for instance, emits signature colours of Red (wavelength of 656 nm), Cyan (wavelength of 486 nm), blue (wavelength of 434 nm) and violet (410 nm).
https://utahscience.oremjr.alpine.k12.ut.us/sciber06/9th/stand_1/images/Hydrogen.jpg
Hydrogen visible spectrum

No other material has this signature, so if you point a spectrometer (a detector that can separate light into its respective wavelengths) at a bright star (like our sun), you will see these specific colour lines missing, which means the sun's atmosphere mainly consists of hydrogen. This is how we know that most stars are mainly made up of hydrogen.

(2) Light emitting devices: Using our knowledge of light-matter interaction, we have been able to come up with ever more efficient ways of generating light cheaply and efficiently for use in ornamentation, signage, germicidal irradiation, lighting, digital devices and optical storage. Simply put, our modern day lives heavily depend on the lessons we have learned from the optical properties of materials.

https://www.ledacademy.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/711.jpg
Some popular applications from the study of Optical properties of materials


(3) Technology of the future: Harvesting solar energy heavily depends on my field of research to come up with very efficient ways to make materials absorb light energy and convert it to electricity, so that we can have cheaper ways to access electricity
https://www.railtransitonline.com/images/solar-energy.jpg
A solar field

We can even make forests in the deserts by creating artificial cold suns that give plants enough light energy to manufacture their food, without causing all of the water to evaporate
https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB14o_7JVXXXXbSXXXXq6xXFXXXo/diy-50w-100w-full-spectrum-hydroponics-led-grow-light-with-full-kits-for-medical-plant-Greenhouse.jpg
An LED lit artificial greenhouse

As you see, this field, while it is a justification unto itself, has pretty much invented our modern world, and is poised to invent the world of the future too!

Anonymity? Why? What you hiding?

I'm hiding my atheist arse from people I'd rather didn't find I am one.

shaybebaby:
You are going to have to invite me to one of them parties, some salsa and merengue would be a fine treat.

One day soon, when my anonymity is less of a concern!

Research eh? I knew there was going to be something for along those lines going on with you. What's your research field?

Condensed matter physics, with special focus on optical properties of matter.

shaybebaby:
Out of curiosity, do you hold all that you write in your head or do you take sneak peaks at textbooks/journals whilst writing?
Confess!

I am acutely aware that the things I write are being read by many, even if not all agree with them. I also have access to some of the biggest repositories of knowledge in the world. As such, I figured, if anybody would learn anything from me, it best be as accurate as I can present it. So I prefer not to risk making mistakes when disseminating knowledge.

To answer your question, no! I don't rely on knowledge from my head, I'm not that smart! Nor, also, do I take sneak peaks at textbooks and journals. I painstakingly read them until I am satisfied that I understand the knowledge contained therein! Then I summarise as I understand, and hope it is easy enough for anybody to understand. Consider this my petite contribution towards making knowledge open access!


It usually horrifies me to know that my summary is misunderstood because it is too complicated. This means I've done a poor job at it. So you see why I took note of the criticism in your compliment.

shaybebaby:
It is indeed a compliment. I listen to Bachata music even though I haven't a clue about the language. But it sounds wonderful.

Same as when you start to write all your stuff, I know it's English, I know it has meaning but it's all too clever for me to comprehend. But the beauty is that you hold such discourse naturally as a matter of conversation.

Its like someone doing a rap of the periodic table.

Latin America, Spain, French, it's all music to my ears. I get mate to speak to me in French just so it can sooth me

New letter Flem? Lmao. Savage.

Bachata? Fine taste!! I love bachata too! I've got tons of Mexican friends, and it's all we dance to at their parties. I'm also a percussionist with a Columbian and bossanova group at my institution, so I sometimes perform when I'm not busy doing research.

shaybebaby:
When you speak (type), it's like when I hear spanish or French. I understand fvckall but I like the sound.

Haha! In spite of the fact that your compliment veils a welcome criticism of my developing communication skill, I'll assume you meant more compliment than jibe.

I quite like the sound of Spanish too! But only the Latin American dialects. The European dialect sounds retarded, and French has never appealed to me. It always sounds like it could use a new letter called flem!

Geist:
Let me see if I get you correctly. By falsifiable you mean that it is true but could have been false only in this case(a theory) it is true and cannot be false again?

Please pay careful attention: Falsifiability has nothing to do with whether a theory is true or false! As I've previously explained, it simply means that the theory can be scrutinised and proven false. This can be done by putting its predictions to the test. If however, every time you test these predictions, they reaffirm the theory rather than falsify it, you can then begin to say the theory yet stands true. The more tests of falsifiability the theory withstands, the more compelling it becomes.

Also I would like you to contrast a scientific theory to a law if they are different. I'm sorry if these things seem like what I should understand with all that has been said so far.

A scientific law is an observation, believed to be immutable within certain boundaries, which describes a particular phenomenon/fact. E.g. Electrostatic law and law of gravity.

A scientific theory lends explanatory power to observed facts. As such, one single theory may lend explanation to several bodies of facts. For example, the theory of stellar evolution explains why we observe stars, why modern stars have high metallicity, how planets exist, how elements on the periodic table came to be and so on. Crucially, they can also predict new facts. For example, the theory of stellar evolution predicts that the first stars were supermassive stars with zero metallicity. This prediction is yet to be confirmed, but it is being tested. Should it be proven wrong, then this theory would have failed. It would then need to be replaced or modified.

Geist:
I read this post sometime ago and I always meant to ask if you could explain how something that is supported by a large body of facts be yet falsifiable? That part got me confused.

Falsifiability does not mean the theory is false, it just means the theory possesses an inherent quality that makes it disprovable. A falsifiable claim must satisfy two requirements to be seen as such:

(1) It must make definite predictions on the subject in question
(2) Such predictions must be testable.

For example, I may propose that every human alive has a heart. This claim is yet falsifiable because it meets both conditions. (1) It predicts that you will find any human alive with a heart, and (2) This prediction is testable because the heart is a definite organ that occupies a specific location in our bodies, which can be detected by various independent tools such as a stethoscope, ultrasonic sensors, x-ray imaging and so on.

I may also claim that the hearth pumps because there are imperceptible percussionists tirelessly playing musical rhythms on their invisible bass drums located inside the heart. This proposition may be supported by fact. We do hear the rhythm of our hearts, after all! Yet, it is not falsifiable because, how do you test the presence of imperceptible percussionists?

UncleRichy:
love is blind

One of the stupidest quips ever uttered! Love is clear-sighted. It is superficial idiots that are blind!

Develpeast:
I am alarmed by the high numbers of atheists in this forum. This is really very serious and dangerous for our young ones. Our next generation must not be abandoned to rot in this satanic generation.

To my lovely young brothers and sisters out there

Your concern for your "lovely young brothers and sisters" is admirable! Yet, it pains the heart that you mistake our (atheists') intent for harm. More than alarm, it is hoped that the "high numbers" bestow awe upon you, and much needed courage to question injurious ideas that have compelled you and many others to fear retribution from a vindictive deity most assuredly imagined.

I want you to understand one thing, the world is imperfect because we humans made it so. The wrong of one has a way of affecting the universe directly or indirectly. If you offend a man, he feels bad and takes one another person who feels bad and say bad things to someone else who might do one or two things to himself based on his emotional weakness. That is why we need to mind what we do to others because it does not stop at the next person but it goes on and on to cause a big imbalance to the world.

And who, or what, in your reckoning has allowed humans to be so besmirched by such imperfect machinations?

Warning: Sieve every information you get online. Some statements look logical and beautifully written but they are always coated in sin and damnation. Please listen, not everything that pleases the eyes is good but what God blesses is good. You were created pure and its only the path you take that makes you impure. Learn to live a simple and godly live, it is cheaper and reduces so much headache and heartache.

It would seem that the only way to smother statements that merely "look logical and beautiful" is to meet them with statements of superior logical persuasion. To invite the people whom you love, to ignore, rather than challenge seemingly logical statements is a harmful kind of love that seeks to perpetuate their fate in the enshrouded confines of ignorance!

To those who say God is omniscient and he knows the end from the beginning. Yes, as an engineer, you know high voltage will always burn the transformer or capacitor of an electrical appliance. So are our actions, if we behave in a particular way, it generates series of chain reactions which will either lead us to happiness or sadness. There is no two ways about it. God gave us the freedom to live the way we want but he also gave us warnings about the different paths to life and death.

Indeed, the engineer knows the certain outcome of voltage overload on any system, yet stands short of potency to prevent such an outcome should it present itself. Your god, on the other hand, has a bombastic reputation of omnipotence. So, a reexamination of your god's attributes or intents or even existence seems surely overdue, wouldn't you say?

You hold on tight, the wait will soon end and glory of God will shine upon us.

To hold on tight to an illusion has its undeniable allure and provides a level of comfort; but only when free from mental shackles shall you truly see your fate through self-acquired end.

It may yet comfort you to know that the very love you have for the younglings, I also have for you, if only you stopped being such a judgemental prat and heed the voice of reason...ever perched in your restless mind, and constantly inflicting upon you, the unrelenting pangs of cognitive dissonance.

Carpe diem!

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

My point: Jeans mass =Kρ^–1/2T^3/2. This mass must be overcome for the gas cloud to collapse. This can be achieved either by assuming that the gas cloud was massive enough, and thus density will increase, reducing Jeans mass. Or you can claim that energy was somehow radiated from the interior of the gas cloud, reducing pressure and thus enabling gravity to cause collapse. Or you can even invent dark matter to compress the gas cloud and induce collapse. I guess the theory is very plastic.

I am not sure what you mean by "the theory is very plastic".

I disagree with your claim that the high density of early gas clouds would "facilitate" H₂ formation. Hydrogen formation before the appearance of the Population III stars ended even before primordial nucleosynthesis(3-20 mins after BB), and so no other process was in place for production of Hydrogen. Moreover, you have to have mass first before density can exist. Hence my question, "high density due to what facilitated the formation of H₂ in the early gas clouds?"

Oh, I see that you have misunderstood my explanation then. You don't need nucleosynthesis to create hydrogen molecules (H₂), as this is not a nuclear reaction, it is rather a chemical reaction that covalently bonds monoatomic hydrogen. The universe was initially dominated by ¹H, e^-, ¹H⁺. Then, due to an adiabatic rise in temperature inside the gas cloud, a chain chemical reaction forming H₂ occurs. It is initially slow, but then picks up speed as the density of H₂ increases. There are two reactive pathways for such a reaction:

1) ¹H + e^- → ¹H^- + photon
¹H^- + ¹H → ¹H₂ + e^-

or

2) ¹H⁺ + ¹H → ¹H₂⁺ + photon
¹H₂⁺ + ¹H → ¹H₂ + ¹H⁺

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

I noted the array of different opinions available on the time it took the first stars to appear after the big bang. The article I provided gave it as 1 billion years. Other sources say 200 million years, while other sources say 300-500 million years. That's a lot of confusion there.

I don't know about 1 billion years, but I've seen estimates ranging from 200 million - 500 million years. This amounts to a margin of error that is ~ +/- 1% of the total period span being investigated. When you peer 13 billion years into the past to estimate the birth of the first stars, I'd say such a small margin of error isn't quite as extreme as you've made it out to be.

Once any hypothesized cloud of hydrogen condenses to a certain size it comes into hydrodynamic equilibrium i.e. the outward force on the cloud caused by the accumulated pressure due to the heating of the compressed cloud equals the inward force on the cloud due to gravity. This is the Jeans limit. At this point no further contraction can occur, unless energy is radiated from the cloud cooling it

Jeans formulation is a ratio between the gravitational attraction of the gases and their outward pressure. Should their gravitational attraction exceed their outward pressure, Jeans theory predicts that gravitational collapse will happen. The lowest temperature that H₂ molecules could cool to is around 200K. At this temperature, you'd require exceedingly high mass to overcome Jeans limit. This is in fact why GIII stars are believed to be super massive. This back and forth about whether they can exist or not is quite exasperating. The JWST will answer that in time.

and this may take an indefinite amount of time.

On what basis do you claim this may take an indefinite amount of time?

Density due to what exactly facilitated the formation of H₂? Remember density=mass/vol.

I don't know what your point is, but I believe I was referring to atomic density of the gas cloud (number of atoms/m³). This makes more sense than mass/vol, as gas atoms are discrete particles in space.

Remember too that primordial nucleosynthesis ended 10-20 mins after BB.

So?

vaxx:
what is good for the goose is good for the gander

Good thing then, we're not a community of geese and ganders!

vaxx:
It is absurd to deny fact. because fact is is an established phenomenon. it is the real truth even if it violate the scientific evidence or human logic.

what I mean by that is you can't make an hypothesis base on what your eyes can see only, because our eyes are subjected to some degree of error. in other word not every victim of attack return revenge and those who even meted it out are not satisfy.

yes human punishment is pointless, to err is human . until man begin to feels for others and nurse the fear of God in them . evil will never vanished.

empathy is the ability to understand how someone feels. and trying to understand how people feels can limit the cause of evil . that is why I say pain and anger block out empathy. every wrong act as a purpose that can be justify by common sense. the ability to feels for other is what is missing.

revenge I say is baseless even to the person who meted it out. an eyes for an eyes make everyone go blind. as the saying goes.


the only solution to the problem facing humanity is to abide by divine law and not human law. even from the time memorial when religion was at is very pick .people still failed to follow this laws.

If divine law is what it takes to make you a good person, then good for you! That's a positive thing! However, don't try to foist your divine law on people who are already good without it!

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

[url=creation.mobi/stars-dont-form-naturally]Here is an article[/url] that establishes the impossibility of your theory to account for the present day universe without evoking a god of the gaps.

Okay, I've read this article, and it does contain some interesting discussions. Before I delve into the main discussion, I will start by addressing what the article does not do: The article is concerned with one particular prediction of the theory, that is; for the present universe to exist, a group of stars known as generation III stars must have existed. Generation III stars are stars presumed to have Zero metallicity (metallicity is the measure of elements heavier than helium inside a star). The reason they are theorised to have existed is obvious: The early universe had an abundance of only Hydrogen, Deuterium and Helium. Heavier elements must have formed in massive supernovae, so their existence could not have preceded generation III stars. Now, generation III stars have never been observed, but we know how to search for them. What we've been lacking the whole time is the right equipment. This equipment is presently being constructed, and results should start filtering in by 2019. Our present theory would be made impossible if, in the end, we find that GIII stars couldn't have existed. To the extent that this article hasn't shown that GIII stars are impossible, it does not establish the impossibility of stellar evolution theory. As you may know, Proof of impossibility is a thorough framework that goes beyond shooting down one particular proposition.

Now, this article picks a grouse with one specific research that models the known laws of cosmology to reconstruct the present universe. It is very difficult to model the early universe. In fact, one of the central problems is the issue of how the light gases were able to condense under their collective weight to form the first stars. this could have happened in one of two ways: (1) Either the gases cooled down enough to condense, or (2) heavy matter preceded the formation of the GIII stars. This second option is, of course, paradoxical because heavy matter couldn't have preceded the same process that birthed them. In the research discussed by this article, the researchers attempted to work around this paradox by substituting dark matter with heavy matter, under the assumption that dark matter already existed. With this work around, they were able to recreate a picture that bears remarkable resemblance with the present universe. This work around, while clever, is certainly very convenient. It makes no sense to assume that something whose existence we've only inferred through gravitational fields can be treated as existing in the early universe. As such, I pick much of the same grouse as the article you've referenced. That said, I hesitate to diminish the significance of the research because it is actually quite insightful. What this research has shown us is that if we solve the problem of gravitational collapse of the light elements that made up the early universe, all our other formulations are pretty much accurate. I think that's quite remarkable!!!

What's your opinion on that fact that cooling clouds of molecular hydrogen(maybe via infrared radiation) alone would have taken a very long time to form the Population III stars, as expressed in the article?

Speaking of gravitational collapse, one of the leading theories as to how this could have happened with GIII stars is through the dissipation of heat by molecular hydrogen particles. In the formation of contemporary stars, heat is easily dissipated through the presence of heavier compounds such as minerals, silicate, ice and other such formations. Not so for GIII! As such, it seem reasonable that the process of heat dissipation would have been slow because first, the hydrogen molecules would have to be formed, then accumulate over time. However, you also have to remember that the density of the early gas clouds would have been quite high also, which would have facilitated H₂ formation. It is not clear to me why you think this process couldn't have formed the first stars. I'd say given our projections that the first stars formed after 200 million years, all the hydrogen atoms had was time!

Isn't it also interesting that gas clouds in the act of collapsing have never been observed in galaxies, as the article points out?

No, it is not at all interesting! It is not possible to observe them collapse at such distances. If you lived on the moon, you wouldn't be able to observe rain drops collapsing on earth, even though rain drops do collapse on earth. Speaking of which, it is pretty much the same process that allows rain/snow fall on earth that also leads to star formation. If you believe the earth's gravity can cause clouds of condensed water vapour to fall as ice or water when these clouds attain a certain critical density, I am not so sure why you are so adamant that interstellar clouds whose centre masses are thousands of times greater than earth's, cannot cause clouds of condensed hydrogen and helium gasses to collapse. Are you arguing that the physical laws of stars are different than those of earth? This would be quite a remarkable claim!

vaxx:
so why is fact been denied in the first first place?

Have you ever denied fact? If so, why?

I called it a mere observation because. you must always have proof beyond what your eyes can't deliver that, since your eyes can't do that alone without some degree of error.

at least you agree with me on the fact I noted. it is accurate indeed.

I am not onderstandin.

yes , that is why I put it forward that human by nature do not have a system that can neutralize or terminate evil. so the punishment of human is very limited since it can not equate its real cause.

So do we both agree that punishment is pointless then?

human law has tried enough to bring fairness and orderliness to the society. prisons were built , rehabilitation home were built. despite all this progress. evil and wickedness act still persist .

Yes, maybe the problem is that we have historically focused too much on punishment than correction. Given the limitations of our current system, maybe a change of approach isn't such a bad thing.

with the revenge. I counter argue that it does not serve its cause even for some one who mete it out. it is anger and pain that birth revenge and the true fact is Anger and pain block out empathy

Your argument isn't clear. Is empathy the cause/course/goal of revenge?

so trying to understand why the person did what they did might be bias in opinion because of empathy. if empathy is lost in the transaction, anger presents itself. and When anger happens human degradation occurs. When human degradation occurs with anger all sort of fuckery happens. It is the loss of emotional stability that comes with the pain. If someone knew how to not get hurt emotionally, then they would not lose empathy, human degradation, revenge, anger would not occur because it would not seem productive or logical to solve the problem on why the person attempted to hurt someone in the first place, because they were hurt and needed help with their emotional. what should be done here is to offer counselling and not revenge.

I don't understand what you've written, but it seems you believe I am advocating revenge. I am not! I am simply acknowledging that it is a strong motivator for the psychologically traumatised, and thus a deterrent for those who wish to avoid being on its receiving end.

And finally for the world to see fairness and justice. Divine law is very important. and the wrath of God must be emphasized to deter human from their evil act.

As I previously demonstrated, this wrath of god is anything but just and fair. I also believe this so-called wrath of god has been thoroughly emphasized over several millennia, yet we're still where we are. It seem to me god's wrath is an ineffectual means by which to bring about justice and fairness.

shaybebaby:
AgentofAllah, sorry to butt in but I am officially declaring myself a groupie.

As you were...

Hi five groupie!

vaxx:
hilarious. I think you accept fact rather than arguing baseless when compare to some of the goons I meet here.

There's nothing special about accepting facts. Denying them is what astounds!

the two question I raised is to test your chance of error. but you do well only that you had some assumption which are base on a mere observation .

How can a deduction based on observation be an assumption? Scratch that! How can you refer to observation as mere? Observation is everything, is it not?

remember

1 many criminal had escape the law

2 many innocent men had become a victim of wrong justice

3 influential and powerful men will always balance the law in their favour.

These are all very accurate observations, not ones easily forgotten by me!

even if you caught by the law, your punishment might not equal to your offence.

I don't even think laws should be punitive. What's the point of punishment? Our actions are the inevitable consequences of our experiences, DNA and environment; none of which we have any sort of control over. Punishment presupposes choice, but choice is an illusion. As such, laws should be deterrent and corrective, not punitive!

imaging if Adolf Hitler the man who killed over 5 million people or idi amin who live like the ancient king of rome were caught before their death. the world judicial system does not have a punishment that can equate their offence. take for example sadam Hussein was only hang to death upon all the thousands men he killed .

Hitler's 5 million victims are already dead. The only thing that counts as justice is bringing them back to live their lives until natural expiry. Anything short of that is not justice! It's either revenge, deterrence or correction. What the law should be concerned with is preventing Hitler from adding one more victim to the statistics. If possible, correcting him psychologically, until he is changed.

so revenge here do not serve Its cause.

Revenge always serves its cause for the person who metes it out. Revenge is not justice or punishment, it's just closure for a psychologically tortured victim.

I think believing in the wrath of God is real.

Yes, believing in the wrath of god is definitely real. You are an exquisite example of one who really believes in the wrath of god...But simply believing something to be real doesn't make it real.

At any rate, if eternal damnation is the wrath of god, have you ever thought that maybe suffering for eternity is a far greater punishment than any crime that can ever be committed? Think about it! Supposing punishment is a legitimate way to seek justice, then you want the punishment to be equal to the crime. Let's say Mr. A murders 100 babies belonging to 200 parents, and all these parents suffer some psychological trauma for the rest of their lives. Now, assuming these parents live for 60 additional years, and the babies were all meant to live for say 100 years. Wouldn't the appropriate punishment for this person be the pain of 10,000 deaths and 12,000 years of the psychological trauma of losing a loved one? In the worst case scenario, let's assume each unit of punishment is spread out in years, then this person is merely supposed to suffer for 22,000 years maximally. Yet, god's wrath would condemn this person to an eternity of suffering. Isn't god's wrath an overkill..literally?

vaxx:
I like the way you address the issue . you acknowledged logic and scientific evidence can not proof that robbing is bad and you back it up with fact.

More Greece to your elbow.

Hmmm I'm not sure how pleased the Greeks would feel about adding more of their country to my elbow, but thanks!

you gave an advice base on revenge. do you believe in it? how can you logically proof it that the people I had robbed and kidnapped will do same to me?

What do you mean do I believe in it? Do you think revenge is not real?
I cannot logically prove that anybody would revenge an act of evil meted on them, but there is plenty of phenominological evidence that people sometimes severely harm criminals in the name of revenge. I'm sure you've seen pictures of criminals being burnt or beaten to death by mob for instance. The fun isn't so much that everyone you cross can, or will revenge, it is in your knowledge that there's a non-trivial chance that you might make a mistake one day, get caught and severely dealt with by a mob, or you might cross the wrong person, one capable of inflicting more brutality than yourself. This non-trivial chance should hopefully serve as a deterrent. Like they say: "Everyday for the robber", no?

vaxx:
I am a very powerful and influential criminal, i do robbing and kidnapping. but I wish to turn a new leaf if only I could be convinced that what am doing is wrong.

can any atheist put forward a single logical argument or scientific theory as to why it is evil for me, I will stop immediately.

it is a gift because you are about to change an ignorance criminal which will add to your achievement as a very intelligent person.
lawani you are invited

The OP has requested logical or scientific theories as to why robbing, kidnapping and their other criminal activities are wrong/evil. To address the OP's challenge, it is crucial to first interpret it correctly. To do so, we must first define the operative adjectives: "wrong" and "evil".

(1) Wrong: This word is a judgement of value, and as it turns out, it has many definitions, however, all these definitions may occupy only two contextual categories, namely (i) social wrong and (ii) functional wrong.

(i) Social wrong: We may roughly define it as behaviour that does not conform to a set of highly regarded standards that guide social transactions. This category includes moral, ethical, legal and customary wrongs. The set of standards are usually highly subjective, and change from community to community, and person to person. In the specific context of morality for instance, it is morally wrong to put on tight skirts in public in Saudi Arabia, but not so in UK or US.

(ii) Functional wrong: We may define this as an action or proclamation that is not in conformity with what is true. This category may sometimes intersect with social wrong, but it is independent of it. In fact, it is highly amoral and apathetic to any social construct. Clearly this type of wrong is more objective (or universal for those who, like me, are subjectivists). An example of this is that tight skirt is a wrong/incorrect attire to put on if one wants to run their fastest. A different example is: it is wrong/incorrect to say 1+1 = 11. You may notice that "incorrect" is a great, often even more appropriate synonym for "functional wrong", but it wouldn't work quite as well with "social wrong".

(2) Evil: Evil, just like "wrong", is also a judgement of value. It is defined as behaviour that is profoundly immoral and malevolent. This is a more straight forward definition, and is clearly just a potent synonym for moral wrong, which falls under the social category.

Given the above definitions, in order to be able to prove that anything is "evil", your selected criterion must satisfy two conditions: (a) It must be able to impose a value of judgement on its results and (b) It must be amenable to moral interpretations. To prove that something is "wrong", however, it needs only accommodate condition (a) vis functional wrong.

Criterion of Logic and Science in Judging Wrong and Evil:

It is here we start to appreciate the import of the above definitions. You see, both science and logic are amoral pursuits, so we immediately see that they fail condition (b). By this account alone, the OP's challenge that their immoral behaviour be logically/scientifically proven evil is entirely moot! It is simply not possible to prove that anything is evil using science or logic. The discussion should end here, right? Well, the OP also used the word "Wrong", so let's see if we fare any better.

Science is fundamentally an endeavour to understand cause and effect. What it does not do, however, is place a value on causes or effects. For instance, I may have scientific knowledge of the processes involved in creating a light bulb with poor efficiency just as well as I have scientific knowledge of the processes involved in creating light bulbs with high efficiency. But there is nothing in science to inform me that making poorly efficient light bulbs is bad. Basically, science is apathetic to the ways you use your knowledge. As such, science also fails condition (a). We can now completely rule out science as a means to address the OP's challenge.

But wait! Not so fast! We have not established that logic fails criteria (a). Well, yes, that's because it doesn't. Logic is able to impose value judgments, but only functional right/wrong not social right/wrong. As such, since stealing and kidnapping are moral acts, whose values rest in social rights/wrongs as opposed to functional, logic cannot be used to prove them wrong. The only way out is if we all agreed that such things as "will to survive", empathy, utilitarianism, and selfishness are universal human traits and valid operands in our logical construct, then I can see a logical pathway through which such a proof can be made. Judging, only, by the OP's ferocious admittance to being a psychopath however, it is clear that these traits are not universal.

In short, if the OP lacks empathy, and fails to acknowledge other people's feelings, then the logical/scientific proof that robbing and kidnapping is wrong/"evil" should be the least of their concern because such a proof is impossible! My only advise to the OP is that they should be prepared for the eventuality of revenge. Revenge is not exactly a logical persuasion, but it could still be a valid persuasion for a selfish idiot who still has the will to live.

Double post...sorry

DeepSight:
Dear Agent of Allah

Many thanks for your lucid and well set out responses on the science of the matter and I am particularly delighted at the academic and professional bent you have given to your ripostes.

Whilst I deeply appreciate the effort given to that approach, I only read and follow science but am not a scientist by training.

Hi DeepSight, thanks! I'm encouraged to know that my effort isn't entirely wasted. Also, I'm starstruck!

Hence I would like to ask you one 9r two questions which may divert towards the philosophy and cosmological theory of the matter.

First question which will guide my other questions is this: Into what is the universe expanding.

Thank you.

As for your question, I can approach it in two ways: The first is just pure, brutal, and unqualified honesty. I am ignorant of the answer! However, I assume you expect to hear more than just this from me, so maybe with a bit of imaginative extrapolation I can give a speculative answer that wouldn't severely violate the logic of what we already know about physical objects. This is a bit challenging, certainly more difficult than admitting ignorance. Also, I am not terribly brilliant, so I expect we will have many flaws to discuss afterwards. I welcome your scrutiny, in fact. I will now outline my reasoning below:

1) Obviously, the very first assumption I've made is that on the grandest of scales, the universe is simply a physical object. This is irrespective of the very many expressions of physical laws which we observe internally. My belief is that ultimately, the different objects and laws we observe inside the universe are just transmutations and fluctuations of energy states.

2) From all observations, the universe seems to be expanding at an isotropic rate. So,
(a) This could mean it is experiencing negligible interactions with surrounding physical objects at its peripheries, thus, nothing to inhibit it expansion. However, "nothingness" is a difficult concept around which to wrap my head, so I can't defend this position.

(b) An alternative proposition is that the vastness of the universe notwithstanding, there is a uniform distribution of physical objects with which it is interacting. The remarkable act of coincidence that would bring this about seems extremely unjustifiable to me. Although, you will later see why it is my preferred option.

(c) The easiest alternative is that all ~13 billion LYs worth of observations we've made is just an infinitesimal local spot (with isotropic properties) in an unimaginably vast universe, and the rest of it is inaccessible to probe. A scenario may exist in this proposition, whereby, not all of the universe is expanding, so the universe may just be an elastic sheet with vast regions of expansion and equally vast regions of contraction, and we just happen to be occupying one, not the other. I see no reason why this cannot be the case. But this would render pretty much all the systematic extrapolations we've made in favour of the big bang utterly useless.

3) From quantum mechanics to Newtonian physics, to general relativity, one grim truth seems inescapable: Every law of nature has its scale and boundaries. So it is perfectly possible that our projections of general relativity to cosmic scales might not be fully accurate. There is however, one rule of nature that permeates these boundaries: Hierarchical structures a la configurations of elementary particles, internal atomic configurations, crystal lattices, cellular configurations of bio-organisms, planetary configurations, stellar hierarchies, galactic hierarchies, clusters, super clusters, pervasive fractal patterns and so on. It just seems like every new object which emerges from hierarchical arrangements of reducible parts inexorably speciates into a reducible part of a new meta-object. One could almost say: every object, no matter how tiny or grand, is a universe unto itself. This, I suppose, makes for a tantalizingly natural projection that whether or not the laws of nature change at and beyond the cosmic scales, the universe might just be a tiny atom inside a hierarchically evolved object, call it a "metaverse" if you will, whose laws I may never get to understand. This proposition is my favourite, and the most awe inspiring for me; what's more, it can easily fit within points (1) and (2b), in that the universe remains a single physical object, and may be experiencing isotropic expansion into a metaverse with, yet, undiscovered laws operational at the universe's peripheries.

If you sense that I veered too deeply into the mind of a madman, we can always resolve to settle for the most invoked thought terminating cliche: god did it! Who knows really?

P.S. I should again reiterate that I am definitely ignorant of the answer to your question, before a casual reader treats my madman's musing as a scientific theory!

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,
While you referred to Prof. Harwit's quote as "severely outdated", you did not show me the "up-to-date" view on his quote. The link you gave contains nothing in it.

Apologies for that sire! The link I gave contains the full article, but you need to be subscribed to access it. I thought it was open access. I will post a .JPG file of it below, and hope it's legible enough. Please read through it to understand how the stellar evolution theory works. In it, he explains with captivating clarity, how tell tale observations helped to formulate the existing theory (it is even more detailed in his book). It is true that there are still several unanswered questions, but that's not a bad deal for Astrophysicists...it keeps them in business. Most importantly, far from falsifying the theory, these unanswered questions propels us to build more sophisticated equipment in our quest to understand the universe. What you must understand, however, is that everyone in the astrophysics community, with no exception, understands the picture painted by this theory to be roughly accurate. Their concern isn't so much that the picture is wrong, as it is about smoothening the rough edges of the picture. Make no mistake though, there are many experimental observations that strengthen this theory, including direct observations of baby stars newly forming in stellar dusts, complete with their accretion disks and whatnots!

https://i68.tinypic.com/jqqm8j.jpg

Well, a more recent statement has it that "...astronomers have never witnessed [even]a high-mass star being born, and hotly debate how they form.” Eric Hand, “Mega-Array Reveals Birthplace of Giant Stars,”Nature , Vol 492, 20/27 December 2012, p. 320

This article was published in 2012, and if you read it, you will find that the question isn't so much about whether stars are born in dusty nebula, as it is what process causes their birth. That stars are born in nebula is a subject that has been long settled. This article was written to advertise the potential of a powerful telescope that was being constructed at the time. The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) telescope was fully launched in 2013, and it has since provided several direct observations of newly forming stars. See refs [1, 2]. Notice that these are some of the latest publications (2016 and 2017) in the field.

With respect to super massive stars, we haven't observed them yet for two reasons:
1) They must be the oldest stars in existence, and such massive stars tend not to live long. We however, know that such stars must have existed due to the abundance of heavy elements in pretty much most nebula we have observed. The only stars with appreciably lower metallicity than our sun are the very old ones clustered around the center of the galaxy. See the discussion in ref [3].

2) We don't yet have the equipment to observe their residual light. NASA and Canada are presently building the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) which would be powerful enough to detect these residual emissions from said stars. I feel fairly confident that this effort will be just as successful as the ALMA in clarifying some of the contentious points and giving us awesome pictures of the oldest galaxies in our universe.

Space.com says that scientists "aren't exactly sure when and how the first stars formed." Note the "when".

This article mentions that we have a fairly good understanding of how stars form today, but we're still trying to understand how the very first stars formed. This is true! When we talk of astronomical timescales, it is impossible to be exact! The conditions of the very early universe are extremely difficult to simulate, so we depend on theoretical extrapolations and experimental observations. As I mentioned, we are only beginning to build a telescope that can peer to the age of the first stars. Let's see how this helps up paint a clearer picture.

I also have a question for you: according to your theory, how cold did the environment get for gravity to overcome pressure? For two gaseous atoms rushing out from a common centre, the distance between them increases with each kilometer they move from the centre. F=Gm1m2/r² decreases then, as the gaseous atoms rush out. What changed the direction of the atoms and brought them together?

Great question! Usually, for hydrogen and helium molecules, this temperature is between 4K - 20K, so there must be a heat dissipation mechanism around the core of these gas clouds (this is also extensively discussed in Harwit's text pp. 451 4th Ed.). As I've mentioned before, the inhomogenieties in the CMB meant there were necessarily localised regions in space with more density than others, even from the beginning. So, in so far as the universe was smaller then than it is now, we know that the these inhomogenious densities must have been even higher then than they are now. If the density of gas clouds today are favourable for star formation, there is no reason why they wouldn't have been with even higher densities. Recall that the distance between the two farthest particles in the universe is limited by the volume of the universe.

References:
[1] Lee, C.-F. et al. "First detection of equatorial dark dust lane in a protostellar disk at submillimeter wavelength". Science Advances 3, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602935 (2017).

[2] Andrews, S. M. et al. "RINGED SUBSTRUCTURE AND A GAP AT 1 au IN THE NEAREST PROTOPLANETARY DISK". Astrophysical Journal Letters 820, doi:Artn L4010.3847/2041-8205/820/2/L40 (2016).

[3] Harwit, M. "Population III Stars.", Astrophysical concepts. 4th edn, 600-601 (Springer, 2006).

I don't really like your fragmented responses because they will eventually lead to too many branches of the same discussion. I have sewn them back all together in this reply. As much as possible, let's avoid fragmentation, thanks!

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

Density of matter in space is too low, and there is nothing to make them stick together. Harwit’s research was devastating to steller evolution. He wrote a book called Astrophysical Concepts. In it he surmises the mathematical likelihood of hydrogen atoms sticking together. Eventually forced to use most favorable conditions, and figuring for the maximun possible sticking ability, he determined that a clump that is one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter would take approximately 3 billion years to form. When converted to a more normative environment, mathematically it would now take 20 billion years. This is for a tiny spec of matter. This means that in our natural universe, a star cannot simply form. It is scientifically impossible.
[quote author=DoctorAlien post=59842494]AgentOfAllah,

I think this is a reference to that particular research by Prof. Harwit:

M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts [1973], p. 394.

Just do a search on that reference.

[/quote]Thanks for the reference. I have now acquired two revisions of the book, Astrophysical Concepts. The book is now in its 4th edition, published in 2006. I acquired this edition because I expect it is fairly up to date with respect to current trends in astrophysics. I also acquired the 2nd edition, published in 1988, because it's the closest thing to the first edition (1973), which is available for download on Springer. The discussion you referenced is on page 415 in the new 4th edition. I absolutely recommend the book. It makes for a great read, technically and qualitatively. It comes at a hefty price though, but I have privileged access, so I can send you my copy by email, if you wish to add it to your collection!

The discussion is titled: Formation of Molecules and Grains [in Space].
Now, I know that you've just copied and pasted this discussion word for word from some young earther's website, but for simplicity, I prefer to directly address you in my rebuttal.
To start with, this is not some ground shattering research result as you've made it out to be, in fact, it is no research at all. It is merely the introductory statement in the above titled section - explaining how molecules and grains form in space - which you have completely taken out of its intended context. If you read the whole section, you will see that the conclusion you have drawn from it is contrary to the goal of the section. Secondly, this section was not referring to Hydrogen specifically, but all (electrically neutral) molecules and grains. I will now clarify it for you:

In order to explain the formation of grains that eventually lead to protostars, Harwit proceeds from a well-acknowledged fact: The average density in interstellar space (~1 atom m^-3) is too small to cause large scale clumping. He then shows, mathematically, how it would take a period much greater than the age of the galaxy to form a particle with radius ~10^-5 cm, as you have described. This was where you stopped, but not him. He continues by showing that this time drops to around 3 million years in interstellar dusts approaching atomic densities of ~ 10³ atoms m^-3. I will quote below, an excerpt from the part you missed out:

"Of course, there exist regions in space where the number density of atoms like oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and iron is ~1 cm^-3. The Orion region is about that dense. If there were no destructive effects there, grains could perhaps form in a time, 3 x 10⁶ years...Furthermore, if the temperature in a dense cool cloud could become low enough so that hydrogen could solidify on the grains without rapid re-evaporation, the growth rate could be still higher by two or three orders of magnitude."[1] The rest of the section then describes events that could aid (such as dust winds) or disrupt the formation of grains(such as ionization, collisions and evaporation).

Another evolutionist, Novotny researched gas in a vacuum and proved gas in a vacuum expands, and does not contract. Given any amount of time, gas cannot contract and turn itself into a star, or a planet.
https://jrcooper.org/tag/big-bang/

In so far as you have not cited Novotny's research, I cannot effectively respond to it. There's a lot of missing detail; like what kind of gas was used? What was the temperature inside the vacuum chamber within which the experiment was conducted, its pressure? Were there sources of interference such as light or electric field?

DoctorAlien:
Pressure is directly proportional to temperature. We don't have to neglect any repulsive force. As a matter of fact, physicists are not unanimous as to whether gravity has to be always and only attractive.

Yes, pressure is indeed directly proportional to temperature! So at low temperature, interparticulate (repulsive) pressure decreases, allowing gravitational attraction to take preponderance. Even the part of Harwit's text which you poorly interpreted above demonstrates this much. And yes, if a particle is electrically neutral, such as Hydrogen molecules or Helium, you can absolutely neglect repulsive force at low pressure! As for repulsive gravity, until such a time as you've experienced spontaneous ejection from the earth, it's a non-issue. If you survive the ejection, we can sit and talk about it.

DoctorAlien:
More quotes, AgentOfAllah:

"There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains can condense." *Fred Hoyle and *N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Where Microbes Boldly Went," New Scientist, August 18, 1981, p. 413.

I've now read this paper. Again, you have unnecessarily misunderstood the quoted text above. The publication isn't so much about star formation as it is about the origins of life. Its goal is to account for some absorbed lines in the infrared spectra of stardust. The paper proposes that these absorbed lines are suggestive of high density of microbes in stardust. In order to rule out silicate matter as the dominant cause of this absorption, the author rightly noted that silicate matter ought to have condensed to big enough grains across the nebula to cause these absorbed lines. However, mineral grains cannot condense in space because they are cold solids! This is a factual statement that has nothing to do with the process of star birth.

*Harwit continues to plague the cosmologists with scientific facts:

"The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That's 10²² stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form." *Martin Harwit, "Book Reviews," Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.

I have now read this reference. The publication is titled Star Formation. This statement, like all the others you've referenced, has been taken out of context, plus, it is severely outdated! You can read the full version HERE. You may find the up-to-date edition in Harwit's Astrophysical concepts 4th edition (pp 10-12, 441), under section 10:1 with the same title.

References

[1] Harwit, M. Astrophysical concepts. 2nd edn, 394-395 (Springer-Verlag, 1988).