Here the moderators seem stricter than at Test4Theory@home, LHC@home and Einstein@home where a volunteer attacking the Test4Theory@home project is still allowed to post his attacks, totally unfounded.
Tullio

---

I hope he is not banned for good! I like him

Most likely a 2 week vacation no worries

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Here the moderators seem stricter than at Test4Theory@home, LHC@home and Einstein@home where a volunteer attacking the Test4Theory@home project is still allowed to post his attacks, totally unfounded.
Tullio

There are general rules that each project has, and the specifics of what is allowed/not allowed is up to each individual project. You mention projects where the individual's rants against T4T are still visible, you didn't mention the other projects that have removed them. Does that make them more strict? Why didn't you mention them? Also, since the individual who is attacking T4T hasn't posted here yet I fail to see how that could be interpreted as us being more strict.

---

Member of the People Encouraging Niceness In Society club.

Here the moderators seem stricter than at Test4Theory@home, LHC@home and Einstein@home where a volunteer attacking the Test4Theory@home project is still allowed to post his attacks, totally unfounded.
Tullio

There are general rules that each project has, and the specifics of what is allowed/not allowed is up to each individual project. You mention projects where the individual's rants against T4T are still visible, you didn't mention the other projects that have removed them. Does that make them more strict? Why didn't you mention them? Also, since the individual who is attacking T4T hasn't posted here yet I fail to see how that could be interpreted as us being more strict.

I found his thread inviting people not to join Test4Theory@home both in Einstein@home and LHC@home, in which I am taking part. I cannot scan all BOINC projects, but, as I wrote in my latest post at Einstein@home, Cafe Einstein, I think no volunteer should be allowed to use the forums of other projects to attack a project is which he is taking part. This was the tactics of a guy called Dagorath who was banned from most projects for his habit of insulting people who did not agree with him, like myself. I think he has reappeared under a different name.
Tullio

---

I've read Jacques Monod's "Chance and necessity" and "La logique du vivant" by Francis Jacob. They, molecular biologists, both believe that life developed by casual fluctuations in a "primaeval broth", but this is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, where the entropy of every closed system is increasing. The opposite view is taken by scientists like Erwin Schroedinger who, at the end of his book "What is life?", written in 1948 before the discovery of DNA wrote: "God created life with the help of quantum mechanics".

How to reconcile those two views?
Maybe a way can be found in the ideas of people like physicist Freeman J. Dyson eho, in his book "Disturbing the Universe", writes:

"It is interesting to note how mind appears at two separate
levels in our knowledge of nature. At the highest level, the
level of human consciousness, our mind is somehow aware of
the complex flux of electric and chemical patterns in our
brain. At the lowest level, that of single atoms and of sin-
gle electrons, the mind of the observer is again involved
in the description of events. The level of molecular biology
lies between the two, where mechanical models are valid and
mind is irrelevant. But as a physicist I am led to suspect
the existence of a logical connexion between the two ways
in which mind appears in the universe. I cannot help thinking
that consciousness in my brain has something to do with the
process called observation in atomic physics...in other words,
mind is already an intrinsic feature of every electron".


These ideas were further developed by physicist Roger Penrose of Oxford University in his books "The emperors's new mind" and "Shadows of the mind".
Tullio

I very much liked your post. Consciousness/self-awareness along with conscience is indeed proof of a Designer.

I hope you have read some works by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,SJ, a prophet forgotten even by his Church. His last work, published after his death, is "The human phenomenon". There is an anthology of his works in English, "The appereance of man", Collins, London (1967).
Tullio

---

the entropy of every closed system is increasing.

That is, of course, 100% correct. However A primordial soup would not be a closed system. Energy could be added; either by the Sun or thermal reactions from the heat stored in the Earth's core. When you were a child you were able to clean up your messy room. You did this by adding energy to restore order.

snipped ...
These ideas were further developed by physicist Roger Penrose of Oxford University in his books "The emperors's new mind" and "Shadows of the mind".
Tullio

I very much liked your post. Consciousness/self-awareness along with conscience is indeed proof of a Designer. [/quote]
And now I.D. thinks he agree's with an aethist. I'm stunned.

From his Roger Penrose's wiki page.

Religious views

Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine,[25] and refers to himself as an atheist.[26] In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along – it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."[27] Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.

I hope you have read some works by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,SJ, a prophet forgotten even by his Church. His last work, published after his death, is "The human phenomenon". There is an anthology of his works in English, "The appereance of man", Collins, London (1967).
Tullio

No, I have not. It seems like I have another book to add to my list. Thank you.

the entropy of every closed system is increasing.

That is, of course, 100% correct. However A primordial soup would not be a closed system. Energy could be added; either by the Sun or thermal reactions from the heat stored in the Earth's core. When you were a child you were able to clean up your messy room. You did this by adding energy to restore order.

Could not this solar system be thought of as a closed loop? At least as far as life goes? In Hydraulics there are open and closed systems, this I know a thing or two about, and even though they are closed some forces act on them from the outside from time to time, like heat. But nevertheless it's a closed system.

the entropy of every closed system is increasing.

That is, of course, 100% correct. However A primordial soup would not be a closed system. Energy could be added; either by the Sun or thermal reactions from the heat stored in the Earth's core. When you were a child you were able to clean up your messy room. You did this by adding energy to restore order.

There are no closed systems. Dark energy.

---

That is, of course, 100% correct. However A primordial soup would not be a closed system. Energy could be added; either by the Sun or thermal reactions from the heat stored in the Earth's core. When you were a child you were able to clean up your messy room. You did this by adding energy to restore order.

True. Then you go to the concept of a "dissipative structure", put forward and developed by Ilya Prigogine. When I was at Mondadori Publishing House I edited an article of his titled "Thermodynamics and biology", but it would take too much space to post it here, besides the fact that it was translated in Italian (by me).
Tullio

---

Prove Dark Energy.

OK, nice and simple.
Work out the mass of known objects in a given volume of space.
Now, work out the gravitational field due to that mass.
Measure the gravitational field in that volume.
From the difference in the measured and calculated gravitational fields you can back calculate the mass of "black matter", and hence the "black energy" in that volume of space.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

I believe that dark energy is what causes the expansion of the universe, as measured by Hobble;s law, to accelerate instead of decelerating. This was inferred by the distance/red shift relationship of "standard candles" (Supernovae of Ia type) in distant galaxies.
Tullio

---

Nice math. Not proof.

You can't do experiments in astrophysics, only observations and infer an hypothesis from that observation.
Tullio

---

You can't do experiments in astrophysics, only observations and infer an hypothesis from that observation.
Tullio

Really? Mr. Einstein might disagree with you?

Nice math. Not proof.

Sorry, wrong on TWO points - not "math", very simple arithmetic, backed by some very interesting and involved astronomic observations.
And if the answer is non-zero then not only do you have PROOF, THAT IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF, you have the magnitude of dark energy, its sign, and its directionality.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Gentleman, you can't reason with ID, he has belief, which trumps reason.

Also in this case he is correct, first you have to prove the law of gravity applies the same in all places in the universe and that it doesn't vary with time. While this is accepted, it has not been proved, so the effects could be explained with changes to the theory of gravity just as easily as dark energy. Never mind that there is no proof that your yardsticks don't vary in some manner.

Unfortunately you can't prove any of nature's laws, because first you have to prove existence, and unfortunately, Renee Descartes proved that can not be established.

---