This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

jinmane's Profile

jinmane's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by jinmane

More Discussions by jinmane

Latest Comments by jinmane

Go to: Space Balloon - Stratosphere Spacecraft Launched From Newburgh, NY

jinmane's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by jinmane

Comment 7 by Byrneo :

To get images from an even higher altitude, is it feasible to have a second latex balloon, filled partially with helium, which would continue to expand as the lack of pressure bursts the first balloon?

For that to work, the density of the second balloon, at the point where the first balloon bursts and detaches, would have to be less than the density of the first balloon/air (and therefore larger, if the mass of the balloons are the same).

Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:37:19 UTC | #529949

Go to: UFOs and Christian "Scientists"

jinmane's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by jinmane

Comment 2 by Roger J. Stanyard :

Space debris is a serious problem for commercial satellite operatiors and the speeds at which satellites travel is miniscule in comparison with the speed of light. A geogtationary satellite takes precisely 24 hours to orbit the earth yet can be damaged or destroyed by space debris (most of the space debris is at a much lower altitute, btw). If a space vehicle is travelling at close to the speed of light any debris could pass straight through it, destroying anything in its path and causing decompression. Even tiny particles of dust would be a huge problem.

Well obviously there is a lot of debris surrounding the Earth, and probably throughout the solar system and most planetary systems generally. But the space between stars, and especially between galaxies, is probably quite empty I'd imagine.

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:14:13 UTC | #512978

Go to: Are we living in a designer universe?

jinmane's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by jinmane

Comment 17 by aquilacane :

The idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today.


Where did these people come from?

Did they evolve in a universe created by other people?

Did they evolve in a blob of jello and decide a universe would be a much better place to live?

Is responding to the age old question " where did we come from" with answers that just create more questions really an answer?

Should I bother to read any further than the line of copy quoted above?

This is the old "life came from outer space" answer to how life began on earth. Never mind the "ok, how did life begin in space" question.

Actually, despite my previous comment, I'm not sure the article is even attempting to answer that question. Here is what I think the article is essentially saying: If it is possible for us to create universes like our own, and universes rarely form naturally (or those that do tend not to be suitable for the formation of intelligent life), then it follows that our universe was probably created artificially. How intelligence came to be, originally, is a separate matter for another theory. This is just an observation that there may exist a branching tree of universes, with those containing intelligent life having been spawned from other "intelligent" universes (if intelligent life is the biggest producer of intelligent universes).

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:37:18 UTC | #508596

Go to: Are we living in a designer universe?

jinmane's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by jinmane

Surely the range of possible child universes that can be created would itself be constrained by some deeper laws of physics. Why should these deeper laws allow for the creation of a universe with the potential to harbour intelligent life? Wouldn't that need an explanation too? This theory just delays the answer, just as the God hypothesis merely pushes back the question of how complex intelligence came to be by adding another layer; it doesn't explain anything at all.

I like the idea that the universe actually has no parameters at all; that these seemingly arbitrary constants only exist in our high-level understanding of physics. Or, to put it differently, that all of these parameters are totally inevitable and could not possibly be any different. And so to say "imagine a universe in which the strength of the weak force is slightly different" would be like saying "imagine a universe in which the number 17 isn't a prime".

In fact I can take this idea even further (I'm not a physicist so go easy on me if this turns out to be nonsense). What if the apparent randomness inherent in physics at the quantum level is actually not random at all when looked at at a deeper level. A system, no matter how complex, should always play out the same way given the same variables as inputs provided the laws of cause and effect aren't violated, right?... So perhaps the big bang would always play out the same way; if you were to run the universe again from the beginning, 13.7 billion years later I'd be sitting here typing this. Maybe then, nothing about this universe could possibly be any different... Isn't that a spooky idea? I think so :)

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:22:33 UTC | #508532

Go to: The Enemy Within

jinmane's Avatar Jump to comment 53 by jinmane

It's rather depressing to have to remind some of you people that religions differ from other ideologies only in that they make supernatural claims about the nature/origins of the universe; they are no more worthy of our respect than the likes of Nazism. Imagine if it were common these days for some individuals claiming to be 'moderate' Nazis to assert that Hitler was part of an extremist minority and not representative of Nazism as a whole. Would you then refrain from criticising Nazism for fear of causing offence? Probably not -- you would continue to criticise Nazism whilst being thankful that the majority of those who label themselves Nazis adhere only partially to it.

Also, the violent and barbaric nature of Islamic ideology is something which anti-theists and far-right Christians can, to some extent, agree on. Therefore I don't find it surprising that this book that Pat recommends is published by a company that also publishes some crazy right-wing shite. I suppose it does indicate, though, that it's probably written from a Christian's perspective rather than from an unbiased, non-religious view.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:13:38 UTC | #490457

More Comments by jinmane