On December 15th, 2011, a great man lost his life. This is not a post saying how great he was. I will admit I've not read any of his work. I plan too, but I haven't yet. This post is not about wallowing in pity about this loss, because there is no point in such a course of action. This post is not talking about the large number of people he inspired, or helped, though that would be a worthy post. This post, one that reaches only very few, will be talking about douche-bag reactions to the death of Christopher Hitchens.
First off, I have ALREADY SEEN some dick headed, heartless responses to the grave news. It seems that a minority (at least I hope it's a minority) of people think this is good news. "HA HA Burn in hell" or the like is common, though there are other more colourful responses... The fact that he hasn't been dead for a day and people are CELEBRATING it. Claiming God's will is to blame. FUCK YOU! A MAN IS DEAD! Anyone who can derive happiness for the passing of another is fundamentally sick. Also, he died of cancer, not act of god. Either accept that ALL people killed by diseases die naturally (and more often than not, painfully), or believe that God decided to make most people suffer for no discernible reason, killing indiscriminately. Claiming that an atheist died because he was atheist is pathetic, and only serves to alienate you further from the rest of the civilized society.
Another type of comment follows this kind of template: "A good man has died, he now knows the Truth". All I can say to this is, shut up. His death proves nothing about your faith. Using the death of another human, the loss of their mind, and potential ideas, to further the goals of his enemies is unethical. It is a sad and failing attempt, and complimenting him in the same breath is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Lastly, in anticipation of all the 'bedside conversion' rumors that will inevitably begin circulation, Christopher Hitchens said this: "As a terrified, half-aware imbecile, I might even scream for a priest at the close of business, though I hereby state while I am still lucid that the entity thus humiliating itself would not in fact be 'me.' (Bear this in mind, in case of any later rumors or fabrications.)" This is an awesome quote, and I will be sure to point it out to any douche bag that tries to convert me with stupid crap like this.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Answering creationist "arguments"
I said this post would be good, and while it is not particularly unique, it is very entertaining. This is of course an incomplete list, but I'll expand upon it later when I find some more "arguments".
Okay, well first off, that's fucked up. Second, there are many reasons why a false result could have been achieved. First and foremost, radiometric dating is to brides on very old things. Fossils, or rocks that are at least a couple hundred years old. Thief younger than this are going to give a false result. Or, if you were using a more appropriate dating method (and thus disproving your conclusion anyway) there is a high chance for human error. I doubt you have a degree in any of the sciences, which makes it unlikely that you know the correct processors. Or perhaps it was confirmation bias comung into play. Doing multiple tests and only one of them was wrong, so you hold it up as a triumph. Silly creationists, tricks don't work well in science.
I respond to this thusly: ever eaten an orange, or a lemon? Those have citric acid in them. And not just a kittle. How come your teeth and stomach didn't dissolve? Remembering from my Chen days (a couple years back) I think an acid is defined as having a readily bonding hydrogen atom on it. Like HCl, or hydrochloric acid. The acidity is determined by the number of free H+ ions in a solution, I think. I'll check my facts and comment the results on this post.
So that is it for the arguments I've seen/heard. If you know of any that you want me to answer, or want to challenge my answers on these, just comment, and I'll get right on it.
If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?Ok, almost everyone has heard this one, and almost everyone thinks it is stupid. But for those who think it is convincing, I'll explain it this way. All dogs were bred from wolves, so how come there are still wolves? It's because only a small group was changed. And there are so many different breeds of dog, but they all have the same ancestor species, the wolf. The same thing applies to humans and monkeys, and apes. We all evolved from a common ancestor. It wasn't a monkey or an ape of today. It was something that had the shared traits of all, and most likely in a more primitive form. There was a divergence of genetics in the past, one side went on to become monkeys, the other to become apes (humans are just really smart apes).
Creatures don't live for millions of years!Once again, this is stupid, even to some creationists. The million year timeline isn't for the individual, but for the genetic group it is part of. Their defendants over the course of millions of years adapt to survive in drastic ways (depending on the circumstances). If a being did live for millions of years, that'd be amazing, and worthy of study and preservation.
I did a (insert radiometric dating technique here) on my dead cat and found it to be thousands of years old. Therefore radiometric dating is false.
Okay, well first off, that's fucked up. Second, there are many reasons why a false result could have been achieved. First and foremost, radiometric dating is to brides on very old things. Fossils, or rocks that are at least a couple hundred years old. Thief younger than this are going to give a false result. Or, if you were using a more appropriate dating method (and thus disproving your conclusion anyway) there is a high chance for human error. I doubt you have a degree in any of the sciences, which makes it unlikely that you know the correct processors. Or perhaps it was confirmation bias comung into play. Doing multiple tests and only one of them was wrong, so you hold it up as a triumph. Silly creationists, tricks don't work well in science.
Scientists like to use big words to sound more impressive, like deoxyribosenucleic acid, for example. Sounds impressive, right? Ever seen what happens when you put something in acid? It dissolves. If we had that throughout our bodies, we'd all dissolve. So much for the theory of evolution.
I respond to this thusly: ever eaten an orange, or a lemon? Those have citric acid in them. And not just a kittle. How come your teeth and stomach didn't dissolve? Remembering from my Chen days (a couple years back) I think an acid is defined as having a readily bonding hydrogen atom on it. Like HCl, or hydrochloric acid. The acidity is determined by the number of free H+ ions in a solution, I think. I'll check my facts and comment the results on this post.
So that is it for the arguments I've seen/heard. If you know of any that you want me to answer, or want to challenge my answers on these, just comment, and I'll get right on it.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
New blog
Hey there, my loyal followers. I'm sorry I haven't posted recently... I'm a shit of a person. I have now got a new blog, Written Utopia. It's about my writing skills; differing styles, practicing for my novel, reviews of literature. Things of that nature. Grammar Nazis are more than welcome, how else will I learn?
Keep a lookout for my next post, it'll be good, as a sorry for my lack of content for the last few weeks/months.
Keep a lookout for my next post, it'll be good, as a sorry for my lack of content for the last few weeks/months.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
A soul saved is a mind lost
I am between reliable Internet sources currently, and as such haven't been able to post ad often as I'd like. This month there will be no insane imagery, but if you have an idea for one, don't hesitate to email me. The address is prophetoflogic@hotmail.com. And now to my post.
There are many reasons one could come up with to suggest that religious people can be amoral, or at least highly immoral. But that isn't such a big problem. It's treatable, just like many mental disorders. A bigger problem is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, most people fail to accept their insanity. And it's transferrable, like paranoia within conspiracy theorist circles. The difference is that conspiracies aren't accepted and respected like religion. Every soul saved is a mind lost. Every person who accepts supernatural claims without, or in spite of, evidence is at least delusional, at worst schizophrenic. But it's even worse.
Some of those counted amongst the saved don't feel anything different to an atheist; don't attribute coincidence to some omnipotent being. In almost every way these people could be considered sane, except that they desire, usually very strongly, a supernatural feeling. They want to be delusional, though they wouldn't call it that, or even know it. It actually saddens me to see otherwise rational people say they long for the day they are touched by god.
when they get this 'touch' ignorance seems to infect their whole mind, moving from simply god to other areas like science and law. I've known people to over the course of a year (after being born again) change their opinion from being strongly against the death penalty, to being strongly for it, as well as other horrible acts, like corporal punishment. It imitates an infection, without a biological or chemical agent. The are no anti-ideology medications. The only thing we, the strongly atheist, can do is to explain their delusion, usually in nicer terms, and try to return them to sanity. It doesn't work often, but when it does, I suspect the sensation is similar to when a psychologist hears a schizophrenic patient say the voices aren't real.
Unfortuantely every soul lost is not a mind saved. Many times when someones soul is lost (not because of death) it is a conversion story. It is easier to believe that the voice in your head was someone different to who you thought, then it is to accept that it wasn't real to start with. No-one wants to be insane. Those who recover, though, seem to retaliate against religion harder than others who, like myself, were never converted to begin with.
Every soul saved is a mind lost. The impression of needing to be saved is hurtful to people, usually causing massive amounts of guilt, and manifesting in other unexpected ways *cough**catholic church**cough*. The idea that atheists need rescuing isn't completely untrue. Most times, however, they need to be rescued from their supposed Sabines. Beatings, life threats and constant harassment seem more characteristic of a stalker, or violent sociopath, than is does of a morally upstanding citizen, but therein lies the paradox. In order to save someone, you should isolated and punish them until they believe. That belief seems about as reliable as a confession given under torture. This has led good-hearted atheists to start groups dedicated to helping the unfortunate victims of the savior paradox. And I am thankful for them everyday.
You probably noticed I said "every soul saved is a mind lost" a number of times. This was no accident. This phrase associates being saved with being insane. It is my hope that it help to alleviate the savior paradox problem. I hope to see it floating around the web eventually, and perhaps even in real life. I know I'll be doing my part, by donating to he groups I vaguely pointed out and by trying to bring people back to the light of reason and sanity.
frites evidentia logica
There are many reasons one could come up with to suggest that religious people can be amoral, or at least highly immoral. But that isn't such a big problem. It's treatable, just like many mental disorders. A bigger problem is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, most people fail to accept their insanity. And it's transferrable, like paranoia within conspiracy theorist circles. The difference is that conspiracies aren't accepted and respected like religion. Every soul saved is a mind lost. Every person who accepts supernatural claims without, or in spite of, evidence is at least delusional, at worst schizophrenic. But it's even worse.
Some of those counted amongst the saved don't feel anything different to an atheist; don't attribute coincidence to some omnipotent being. In almost every way these people could be considered sane, except that they desire, usually very strongly, a supernatural feeling. They want to be delusional, though they wouldn't call it that, or even know it. It actually saddens me to see otherwise rational people say they long for the day they are touched by god.
when they get this 'touch' ignorance seems to infect their whole mind, moving from simply god to other areas like science and law. I've known people to over the course of a year (after being born again) change their opinion from being strongly against the death penalty, to being strongly for it, as well as other horrible acts, like corporal punishment. It imitates an infection, without a biological or chemical agent. The are no anti-ideology medications. The only thing we, the strongly atheist, can do is to explain their delusion, usually in nicer terms, and try to return them to sanity. It doesn't work often, but when it does, I suspect the sensation is similar to when a psychologist hears a schizophrenic patient say the voices aren't real.
Unfortuantely every soul lost is not a mind saved. Many times when someones soul is lost (not because of death) it is a conversion story. It is easier to believe that the voice in your head was someone different to who you thought, then it is to accept that it wasn't real to start with. No-one wants to be insane. Those who recover, though, seem to retaliate against religion harder than others who, like myself, were never converted to begin with.
Every soul saved is a mind lost. The impression of needing to be saved is hurtful to people, usually causing massive amounts of guilt, and manifesting in other unexpected ways *cough**catholic church**cough*. The idea that atheists need rescuing isn't completely untrue. Most times, however, they need to be rescued from their supposed Sabines. Beatings, life threats and constant harassment seem more characteristic of a stalker, or violent sociopath, than is does of a morally upstanding citizen, but therein lies the paradox. In order to save someone, you should isolated and punish them until they believe. That belief seems about as reliable as a confession given under torture. This has led good-hearted atheists to start groups dedicated to helping the unfortunate victims of the savior paradox. And I am thankful for them everyday.
You probably noticed I said "every soul saved is a mind lost" a number of times. This was no accident. This phrase associates being saved with being insane. It is my hope that it help to alleviate the savior paradox problem. I hope to see it floating around the web eventually, and perhaps even in real life. I know I'll be doing my part, by donating to he groups I vaguely pointed out and by trying to bring people back to the light of reason and sanity.
frites evidentia logica
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Insane Imagery
Welcome to the late edition of Insane Imagery. This month I'm doing Star Wars, and focussing on the key elements of the films. These features include:
We all know what a lightsabre is, the fantastic sword apparently made of extreme light and heat, which in all other aspect behaves like a sword. But is it a plausible weapon? Short answer: No. Any weapon which is made of light is not going to be solid enough to deflect other weapons, or blaster bolts, or anything else for that matter. Ever try to block a punch with a laser light?That doesn't even get into the idea of keeping the light in a very constricted shape, without the use of mirrors.
Of course, that isn't to say something similar will never be available. The characteristics of a Lightsabre are almost identical to those exhibited by a Plasma Sword. What's Plasma? Why, Plasma is the forth state of matter! Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma. If somthing doesn't fit solid, liquid or gas, it's probably plasma. Some examples are, FIRE! LIGHTNING! AURORA BORIALIS! AURORA AUSTRALIANIS! NEBULAS! and many others. Chemically, plasma is a state of matter in which all molecules are dissociated and most are ionized. Make any sense to you? Chemists, correct me if I'm wrong, but is that basically the nuclei (centres) of the molecules are not really connected, but the electrons are almost free moving? Sounds about right.
In any case, if enough energy was produced to superheat plasma, it could be drawn out and held in place with a ridiculously powerful electro-magnetic field. The EMF would cause the sword to strike other such swords as though they were solid, but would pass straight through a non-magnetic sword... although the superheated plasma would probably do some damage. Another advantage would be drawing magnetic weapons to it, melting or contorting them to be useless. This isn't seen in the movies, but would be cool to see in real life.
Despite the seeming simplicity of the concept, creating a "lightsabre" would be next to impossible, as the energy requirements for even short term use are astronomical. In order to create one with today's technology, you would need a nuclear reactor, several super computers and something the size of a tank to house it all. and that's for a normal length blade. We won't be seeing any lightsabres around here any time soon. Blasters on the other hand...
Blasters
The other handheld weapon of the Star Wars trilogies is the blaster. In effect, a blaster is a handheld weapon of similar shap and size to our current firearms, the only difference being they shoot what looks like lasers. A more likely shot would be, you guessed it, Plasma.
Plasma guns do exist. They aren't military grade, and are VERY bulky, but they do exist. They are known as Dense Plasma Focuses or DPF, and shoot short lived high temperature, high density plasma in scientific experiments. If the design could be miniaturized, and the yield increased, so as to increase the life of the plasma shot, it might achieve a weapons grade. As it is, it is indescribably useful to science, and completely useless to the military.
The other big problem would be energy. It requires a large amount of energy to create the shots of plasma, and nothing we can currently create at a handheld level as anywhere near the levels of output required to run such a device. If a small portable fusion or even fission reactor could be designed, then we'd be much closer to the time of lightswords and ray guns. If we managed to create such a device, perhaps we'd have the energ needed for faster then light travel.
Space travel
First off, when designing the films, the distance between planets was not taken into account, or at least can't have been thought through. Most of the travel in the galaxy was by large starships going at light speed. Not only is this impossible, it is impractical. The faster an object moves, the more energy it needs to go faster; and the more energy it has, the larger it's mass. In order to go at the speed of light, an object would require an infinite amount of energy, and because of that it would have an infinite amount of mass. This is one of the things discovered by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
The design of the starships witin the Star Wars universe are reminiscent of the rockets of old. They suggest that some fuel burning within a confined space would create a sufficient speed for galactic travel. This is not the case. Unless the fire at the back of the ships were plasma vents... A more realistic inter-planetary transport system would be an Alcubierre Drive, which is akin to the Warp Drive of Star Trek. A drive of this style creates a wave IN THE VERY FABRIC OF SPACE! Doing this would make the space around the ship move, not the ship itself, so it violates no Relativistic laws. Of course an Alcubierre Drive doesn't suggest the intricate maneuvers demonstrated in the films as possible. Though if it could be weakened and directed, there isn't any logical reason why it wouldn't work. At present, there are no known ways to create a spacial distortion event. Perhaps we'll find an alien species who knows a way...
Aliens
This is an interesting question, are there aliens, and if so, what do they look like? The best thing about the films is that the aliens really do look strange. If aliens are out there, it is almost impossible that they'd look similar to anything we have on earth. The conditions of life on other planets would be different to Earth, just because it isn't Earth. They even have creatures that aren't sentient, which is how you would expect it to be, if they worlds there are anything like Earth.
I won't say whether there are aliens out there or not, because I have no idea. Whose to say just how likely a life starting event is? Or a sentience event? It's possible that we'll never find alien life, just as it it possible we'll find some tomorrow. I will remain agnostic to this question, as the evidence just isn't there for either side.
I have hopefully explained to you the various logical inaccuracies and potential real world applications of the science of Star Wars. I'm likely forgetting a lot, so if you notice something I forget, please comment on here so I can address it. Otherwise, comment of likes and dislikes, follow me if you want, and stay tuned for mor INSANE IMAGERY!
- The Lightsabre
- Blasters
- Space Travel
- Cloning
- Aliens
We all know what a lightsabre is, the fantastic sword apparently made of extreme light and heat, which in all other aspect behaves like a sword. But is it a plausible weapon? Short answer: No. Any weapon which is made of light is not going to be solid enough to deflect other weapons, or blaster bolts, or anything else for that matter. Ever try to block a punch with a laser light?That doesn't even get into the idea of keeping the light in a very constricted shape, without the use of mirrors.
Of course, that isn't to say something similar will never be available. The characteristics of a Lightsabre are almost identical to those exhibited by a Plasma Sword. What's Plasma? Why, Plasma is the forth state of matter! Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma. If somthing doesn't fit solid, liquid or gas, it's probably plasma. Some examples are, FIRE! LIGHTNING! AURORA BORIALIS! AURORA AUSTRALIANIS! NEBULAS! and many others. Chemically, plasma is a state of matter in which all molecules are dissociated and most are ionized. Make any sense to you? Chemists, correct me if I'm wrong, but is that basically the nuclei (centres) of the molecules are not really connected, but the electrons are almost free moving? Sounds about right.
In any case, if enough energy was produced to superheat plasma, it could be drawn out and held in place with a ridiculously powerful electro-magnetic field. The EMF would cause the sword to strike other such swords as though they were solid, but would pass straight through a non-magnetic sword... although the superheated plasma would probably do some damage. Another advantage would be drawing magnetic weapons to it, melting or contorting them to be useless. This isn't seen in the movies, but would be cool to see in real life.
Despite the seeming simplicity of the concept, creating a "lightsabre" would be next to impossible, as the energy requirements for even short term use are astronomical. In order to create one with today's technology, you would need a nuclear reactor, several super computers and something the size of a tank to house it all. and that's for a normal length blade. We won't be seeing any lightsabres around here any time soon. Blasters on the other hand...
Blasters
The other handheld weapon of the Star Wars trilogies is the blaster. In effect, a blaster is a handheld weapon of similar shap and size to our current firearms, the only difference being they shoot what looks like lasers. A more likely shot would be, you guessed it, Plasma.
Plasma guns do exist. They aren't military grade, and are VERY bulky, but they do exist. They are known as Dense Plasma Focuses or DPF, and shoot short lived high temperature, high density plasma in scientific experiments. If the design could be miniaturized, and the yield increased, so as to increase the life of the plasma shot, it might achieve a weapons grade. As it is, it is indescribably useful to science, and completely useless to the military.
The other big problem would be energy. It requires a large amount of energy to create the shots of plasma, and nothing we can currently create at a handheld level as anywhere near the levels of output required to run such a device. If a small portable fusion or even fission reactor could be designed, then we'd be much closer to the time of lightswords and ray guns. If we managed to create such a device, perhaps we'd have the energ needed for faster then light travel.
Space travel
First off, when designing the films, the distance between planets was not taken into account, or at least can't have been thought through. Most of the travel in the galaxy was by large starships going at light speed. Not only is this impossible, it is impractical. The faster an object moves, the more energy it needs to go faster; and the more energy it has, the larger it's mass. In order to go at the speed of light, an object would require an infinite amount of energy, and because of that it would have an infinite amount of mass. This is one of the things discovered by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
The design of the starships witin the Star Wars universe are reminiscent of the rockets of old. They suggest that some fuel burning within a confined space would create a sufficient speed for galactic travel. This is not the case. Unless the fire at the back of the ships were plasma vents... A more realistic inter-planetary transport system would be an Alcubierre Drive, which is akin to the Warp Drive of Star Trek. A drive of this style creates a wave IN THE VERY FABRIC OF SPACE! Doing this would make the space around the ship move, not the ship itself, so it violates no Relativistic laws. Of course an Alcubierre Drive doesn't suggest the intricate maneuvers demonstrated in the films as possible. Though if it could be weakened and directed, there isn't any logical reason why it wouldn't work. At present, there are no known ways to create a spacial distortion event. Perhaps we'll find an alien species who knows a way...
Aliens
This is an interesting question, are there aliens, and if so, what do they look like? The best thing about the films is that the aliens really do look strange. If aliens are out there, it is almost impossible that they'd look similar to anything we have on earth. The conditions of life on other planets would be different to Earth, just because it isn't Earth. They even have creatures that aren't sentient, which is how you would expect it to be, if they worlds there are anything like Earth.
I won't say whether there are aliens out there or not, because I have no idea. Whose to say just how likely a life starting event is? Or a sentience event? It's possible that we'll never find alien life, just as it it possible we'll find some tomorrow. I will remain agnostic to this question, as the evidence just isn't there for either side.
I have hopefully explained to you the various logical inaccuracies and potential real world applications of the science of Star Wars. I'm likely forgetting a lot, so if you notice something I forget, please comment on here so I can address it. Otherwise, comment of likes and dislikes, follow me if you want, and stay tuned for mor INSANE IMAGERY!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)