• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Sheridan and the WTC

Whoo, boy. Well, this thread is certainly a doozy.

First thing's first: giffy isn't a troll. What I see on this thread is discussion on several issues simultaneously, with parties with different positions providing fact, analogies, and good explanations for their cases. What's wrong with that? Frankly, sometimes it's more interesting than having a dozen threads about which B5 captain is better, TNT is evil, and Ain't It Cool News is stupid. It's just a shame that when lively, intelligent discourse comes about, it's usually stifled.

However, I would understand moving this thread to the off-topic forum.

Ok, next:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>You can twist facts to back up any oppinion. So every oppinion has some facts behind it, regardless of how twisted and/or trivial that fact may seem. No one has a factless oppinion, the facts you have may not be real facts, but they are to you and you use them to back up your oppinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a fact is "twisted" is not "not real," then it isn't fact, is it? It is a lie. An opinion based on lies is not valid. By definition, a fact is true. A reasonable conclusion is based on smaller, previously proven facts or axioms. No offense, but if you don't understand this, I suggest you study logic and buy a dictionary.

Here's a factless opinion: AIDS is a plague sent by God to punish sinners. It is factless, because there are no facts to support that. Therefore, we can safely call that stupid opinion.

By the way, it's opinion, not oppinion.
tongue.gif
smile.gif


Solaris, I know you mean well, and I also want this place to be friendly and fun. But stifling good dialogue and creating personal conflict where none existed are just as bad as flame wars.

Next:
Of course it takes a community to arrive at truths, I never said or meant anything to the contrary. In fact, I believe it is quite clear the I support the scientific method as the only tool that can allow humanity to discover the true nature of the physical world. The scientific method, by definition, involves a community of learned peers and scholars. It is a checks and balances. Of course, an individual researcher could be subjective, but his or her peers, as a whole, will not be.

And of course it takes a long time to arrive at these conclusions. If anything, that's a good sign. Would you want someone to build your house in two days? Why should determining the very nature of the universe be any different?

Jaguar's example of the Big Bang is a good point. It is not accepted by everyone, and even those who do will never even pretend they know much about it. In fact, the idea of the Big Bang only came about as a logical point. The expansion of the universe is a fact (nice tie-in to my previous post, eh?), so the logical conclusion is that the universe was infintely small. Thus, a Big Bang.

So, it is not correct to say, "The Big Bang was an event that definitely happened." It is equally incorrect to say, "The Big Bang theory is a lode of malarkey and just plain wrong."

The problem with a concept like the Big Bang is that people misunderstand. Most laymen think of it as a giant explosion, like dynamite. Since this seems like a silly idea, they conclude it couldn't have happened. Of course, the Big Bang was not an explosion. That requires matter, air, etc, all of which wasn't around. I myself am not clear on the whole thing, but I acknowledge it. There is nothing wrong with not knowing. There is something wrong with making up your stuff and calling it fact. People do the same thing with evolution: "What do you mean humans come from monkeys? That's absurd, it can't be true." Of course, because that's not what evolution is!

The Big Bang is not a historical event, like the formation of earth and the signing of the Declaration of Independance are. The universe has dimensions in which it operates. Before the universe, there were no dimensions, logically. Time is a dimension. So, you can't really talk about the Big Bang as a historical event.

Jaguar, I don't get your last thing about red-shifting. You provided an alternate explanation for it, then said it means the universe is expanding "more slowly." More slowly than what? You're still saying that the universe is expanding, which is exactly what I said.

Red-shifting and universe expansion have been proven extensively by scores of other means, by the way. I just used it as an easy example. What isn't known is the rate of expansion or the "shape" of the universe (hyperbolic, parabolic, circular) which determines whether or not it will contract eventually.

Yes, in the future things like this may be proven and it will be known as fact. So, what's wrong with that? I thought that was the point.


------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
G's Eye, what I'm trying to say is that we do know that there is a red shift, I think that that is indisputable. But why is there a red shift? Our current explanation is that the universe is expanding, and the motion produces the doppler effect, and thus the red shift. But that explanation for the red shift is our only evidence that the universe is expanding, it's a circular argument, one proves the other. It may be true, but what if there was another explanation for the red shift? Then, we would not have proof that the universe is expanding, if it could be explained another way. So perhaps waves decay slightly to a lower wave length, and energy level, as they travel. THAT would explain the red shift, without resorting to the doppler effect/expanding universe to explain the red shift. Or perhaps there is some other explanation for the red shift, besides my possibile explanation. So the point is, we can't be absolutely sure that the universe is expanding. Now, if my possible explanation for red shift is correct, the effect I posit may not be enough to produce the amount of shift we see, so the universe might still be expanding, but at a slower rate.
shocked.gif


------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood

Palindromes of the month: Lager, sir, is regal. Do geese see god?
 
Jade, as I said before, an "explanation" is valid only if proven. If overwhelming scientific evidence shows the decay thing to be true, and strong enough to discount the expanding universe theory, then of course we would have to re-evaluate it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>But why is there a red shift? Our current explanation is that the universe is expanding, and the motion produces the doppler effect, and thus the red shift. But that explanation for the red shift is our only evidence that the universe is expanding, it's a circular argument, one proves the other. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think you are confused. You are saying that the universe's expansion is being used a premise and a conclusion (the circular argument). This simply isn't true. It is not a premise at all, but the conclusion one makes given the observed red shifting of stellar light spectra.

Besides, you and I seem to be agreeing on the major points, so it seems pointless to keep going on and on about red-shifting. As I said, it is just an example (there are plenty of other proofs for the expansion of the universe).

The problem is when people say things like, "Well, people use to think the earth was flat and everyone thought that was true." So what? That conclusion was not based on observation, logic, and evidence. It came from mythology. The comparison is bogus. We have to understand the difference between what we think, what we know, and what we can proove, and how our belief systems and "knowledge" come about. Why do you (again, I mean everyone, not one person in particular) believe what you believe, think what you think? Can you look at that honestly and acknowledge if the source of these beliefs are flawed, biased, or a front for some agenda?

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
G's Eye, I posted my last post because you said you didn't get what I meant about another explanation for red shift, so I gave you a long version. I'm not saying that anything you said is wrong, it is the currently accepted state of things, I'm just saying that at some future date, even something that most accept, like the expansion of the universe could turn out to be incorrect. And by the way, I read something a few years back that said that from analyzing the distribution of galaxys, that the universe was looking something like two full soup bowls, bottom, or sort of like two 3d hyperbolas, with most galaxys concentrated in the hyperbolas, and very little between. I don't know if that model still holds.

------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood

Palindromes of the month: Lager, sir, is regal. Do geese see god?
 
First of all, what does "solipistic" mean?

bakana, thanks for the good news. Maybe some good can come out of this mess.

giffy, I'm afraid I lost you. If you question the scientific method, which, practiced correctly, is by its very nature objective, and you don't think that that the physical nature of the world can be looked at objectively, then you and I will never see eye to eye and the discussion becomes pointless.

What you're saying comes off as philosophical excuses for ignorance. You are applying a subjective method, philosophy, to an objective practice. By definition, you will fail. It is like people who treat the Bible as a scientific and complete historical document: apples and oranges.

As an example, take the expansion of the universe. Scientists have discovered that the universe expands because objects in space are "red shifted," that is, the wavelength of light emitted by those objects is longer than for a stationary object. This only happens if an object is moving away from the observer, like sound waves when a train is speeding away from you. Since all stellar objects are red-shifted, they are moving away from us in all directions, an expanding universe. Given the overwhelming evidence for this phenomenon and the application of honest, objective logic, there can be no other conclusion. Sure if someone wanted the universe to be stationary, they could somehow squeak out some bullshit argument, but then it isn't truth. It is wrong.

The above was just an example, but I hope illustrates what I'm trying to say. They very purpose of science to exclude subjectivity from the process, and therefore does not require philosophy, belief, or faith.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GKarsEye:
So, no, not all opinions and viewpoints are valid.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry, but I refuse to beleive that. If properly argued any oppinion and viewpoint is valid, because it is an OPPINION and a VIEWPOINT, very different from a fact.
Oppinions are proven by backing them up with facts, if a person can get the facts to back up an oppinion, then it is valid, regardless what you or anyone else may think of it.


May Valen be with you.
 
solipism is the branch of philosophy that argues that only one mind kind be proved. Namely ones own. The result of solopistic thinking is often that nothing exists expept me and since I ma the only one how do I exist. At least thats my understanding of it.

I am not throwing out the scientific method I am simply saying that it is not all there is to knowledg.e Science is one tool in understanding. I agree completly that to compare say religion to science is apple to oranges. When it comes to science waht I am sying is that an individual scientist cannot objectivly understand the universe. However a group of scientists with distriuted bias's can. This is partially why peer review is important. Secondly this descion began with your question of wether feeling or truth is better. My comment was that they are equal and interlinked. I do not believe that one can be placed above the other no more then a hammer above a screw driver.

Thanks for the great descusion

------------------
Scott Gifford

Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Secondly this descion began with your question of wether feeling or truth is better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it did not. That is, as you say, pointless. The point is: how do you apply each, and what purpose do they serve?

In a simplistic sense, emotion is a result. Having a relationship with and caring about a great girl makes me happy. It doesn't mean she is, objectively, a "great girl," or that I'm right, nor does it matter. It has nothing to do with truth or science.

However, you can't use an emotion to arrive at a conclusion and call it truth. That would be like saying, "Gravity makes me angry, therefore gravity doesn't exist. That is a fact." Pretty silly, ain't it? But people do this all the time. And that's what I have a problem with.

Solaris, I really don't see how you disagree with me, you're just arguing semantics. You said that "if a person can get the facts to back up an oppinion, then it is valid." Right. So, if the facts contradict an opinion, it is not valid. People commonly hold opinions that are contradicted by facts. Therefore, not all opinions are valid.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
Okay, I'll go along with the consensus and work under the assumption that the thread is legit. Ergo, and for the sake of solidarity:

Scott, I'm sorry for doubting your sincerity, mistaking your intentions, and any distress that my responses have caused you.

FWIW I have nothing against female epistemology. I'm not disputing the legitimacy of alternate points of views, especially on the basis of a person's gender or pre-conceived notions about gender, or the value of a collective review of issues or opinion.

On the other hand, a false analogy isn't the best example.

Hold on to your triluminaries, kids. We're about to talk about B5 all of a sudden:

The analogy likens the deaths of innocent people in the real world to the come-uppance of villains in a science fiction epic. Those two images fit together as easily as a bowling ball in a mayonaisse jar. And as you can see, the mess is about as bad. You can superimpose the images, but that doesn't mean their meaning will also lend itself to that little exercise.

The Shadows are supposed to be an ancient, secretive race of war-mongers with technology at least a thousand years ahead of most others. Their explicit objective was to cause chaos and destruction on an astronomical scale for the sake of a higher ideal. Their agents and allies might make token expressions of remorse for the deaths and suffering they caused, but they value their ideology above the lives and rights of others. They're Bad Guys (tm).

The people killed in Sept 11 were on the sidelines of a bitter conflict, the innocent victims of a sneak attack. The most sinister agenda in that community was to pay their bills and feed their families. They didn't agree to any collective plan to kill or oppress as many Afghani people as possible. Their murderers did not take their grievances to a peer review recognized by the global community. No one in New York City lured them there. They took it upon themselves to go there and essentially speak for the whole of Islam. They may consider their actions heroic or even holy, but their subjective opinion cannot stand up to the fact that, when analyzed logically and without emotion, those actions were unethical. They had no right to kill innocent civilians, even under the pretense of religion or defensive war.

Sheridan was one man against overwhelming numbers. He was the duly chosen representative of a community. His goal was to stop a war and save billions of lives, not to start a war. The Shadows used his wife to lure him to Z'ha'dum. When given the opportunity, he engaged the Shadows' agents/servants/whatever in discourse. He laid out his grievances and he heard theirs. And once his freedom and his life were in jeopardy, the nukes were his last resort, not his first. It wasn't a backhanded attempt at vengeance, but a desperate gamble to help others. His actions were horrific, sure. But they were his only recourse.

The comparison just doesn't work. The logic behind it is just too weak. And I doubt it's illuminated anyone, but rather caused more harm than good.

------------------
Joe Medina (neargrai@aol.com)

"...that which are, we are"
 
Yep, that's about right. As I said, you can't compare TV to real life, expecially this situation.

However, Darquin, one minor point: the comparison and this thread may have done good. People learn from mistakes and errors. They are healthy and a necessary part of the process of learning. If someone understands why the analogy fails, he/she will have learned something. There is no harm in discussion unless people decide to make it so.

What is female epistemology?

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
I disagree that you can't campare tv to real life. Many times art has been used t o reflect life and people have used art to understand life. While certanly you can't make desicions or structure world views around tv shows they can serve as a tool for examining issues. In the case of this thread it was the issue of wether or not mass murder is always wrong. You have the case of Sheridan who killed millions of an evil enemy. Yo uals ohad the case of terrorists killing thousands of innocent Americans. Both are attacks desinged to kill many. By looking at them we can discuse more easily what tactics are acceptable in war and what tactics are only acceptable for one side or the other. A tv show can provde an idealized cituation that can act as a base line for comparision. OF course you can't judge based on the actions of fictional caracters, but they can provide a common refrence point for discussion. I completly agree though that the shadows are evil and most people in the trade centers were probably all good people.

Feminist Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that attempts to understand knowledge through a feminist perspective. By lookign at the role that gender, race, sexual orientation, and class play in an individuals knowledge they hope to better understand what gets to count as knowledge and how knowledge is aquired. Some main critiques that it levels against traditional epistomolgoy are agianst objectivity, sexism, and hierarchical relationships. It seeks to understand how forces of socialization effect individuals and how communities form and what there effect on knowledge is. Feminst Epistemology is ver yhard to define and this leaves alot out, but I hope it gives you a little insight in to the field

------------------
Scott Gifford

Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures
 
A few thoughts...

- All sentient beings spend an awsome amount of time erring.
- Serious errors in serious matters can have serious results.

Luckily most sentient beings realize this. Thus they seek ways to limit the extent and consequences of their errors. There is a variety of such ways, they go under a variety of names. Science, logic, common sense, peer review, discussion, (self) criticism.

The human equivalent of parity checks / cyclic redundancy checks.
laugh.gif


My subjective opinion: due to the limitations of our thought & language, our ability to define, express and comprehend... we can not construct statements of "absolute truth". Absolute truth is irrelevant.

What is relevant is to understand *how* we make mistakes, to find effective ways recognizing and neutralizing mistakes, biases and presumptions. To find methods for limiting their damage, to achieve reasonable objectivity while staying as the subjective beings we are.

----------

As for the red shift...

You have two available points, the distance and relative speed of which you can ascertain and cross-check with various means.

You can, for example, time the arrival of fixed-frequency laser pulses, sent from an object moving with a constant velocity, triggered by a sufficiently synchronized clock.

Besides timing the pulses and determining the speed from their time, you could measure their Doppler shift and determine the speed from their shift.

You could do it with high and low speeds, near and distant objects, different clocks and lasers, taking into account relativistic effects on clocks... whatever. Until you are sure enough that you have results which can be trusted.

This has by now been done, relatively independently, by hundreds of scientists, relatively unbiased (or biased randomly in opposing directions) whose results have underwent peer review and criticism.

They have found that Doppler shift does not depend on distance, only on speed. With an accuracy which would suggest that there shouldn't be a detectable distance-caused shift even if the distance approaches the probable dimensions of our universe.

Thus I would say that the Doppler shift has been sufficiently proved for measuring speeds, at least for my purposes. When a radar misreports speed, I am more inclined to believe that the error lies in the axe somebody smashed it with.

But for some (very exotic) calculations of theoretical cosmology, the causes & conditions related to red shift may not be sufficiently explained yet.

------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited October 25, 2001).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Yes, that's all well and good. Fine. But couldn't this have waited? These people didn't die in the abstract. There are folks still in mourning out there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With this I agree. A later time may have been better for this topic.

------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
 
Yes, that's all well and good. Fine. But couldn't this have waited? These people didn't die in the abstract. There are folks still in mourning out there.

------------------
Joe Medina (neargrai@aol.com)

"...that which are, we are"
 
I agree peopel are still morning. I still get a little choked up when I see the New York skyline or see something to do with the resured. I really felt it with the Non Sequiter cartoon with the firefighter holding the person up to heaven. Very moving.
Because peopel are sad does not mean that things have stoped. The responce to the attacks is going on as we speak. We are doing things know that will have reprocusions for generations. If we as citizenry are to make informed desicions the nwe must understand what has happened. I nored to do that many people including myself need to talk things over. If someone does not wnat to talk about what happened or only wants to focus on theactual attack itself thats fine, they have aright to that, everybody deals with things in there own way. I try and find the root causes of events and seek to find comparision.s I feel that is one way in which we can hopfully get beyond events like 9/11. Once agian to anyone who was offended or upset by this thread I am sorry. I did not mean to hurt anyone only to have a discusion on the attacks in the context of B5 and the shadows. I think that enoguh has been said at least y me. So I beilieve that I will bid this thread aidu

------------------
Scott Gifford

Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures
 
At first I was happy and surprised at how well this topic was going,And I dont beleive this is too soon to have it yes I understand people are still mourning and that cant be helped but a topic like this has to be discussed and the sooner it is then perhaps the more other innocent victims both in the US and Afgan will be spared if people can look beyond sep 11 and try to understand why it really happened in the first place.
Its easy to consule ones self with the fact a group of highjackers got up oneday to reign choas on the US, but i think we all know theres more to it then that I will have to continue this latter but I urge everone to stay possitive and level headed on this thread

Never speak with your mouth full
Never speak with your brain empty

------------------
 
Ok ive got time to finish ,but Ive decided to skip the whole political opinion thing.
Back to the whole Sheriden WTC debade
1. both the Taliban and Sheridan faced a force they didnt have a hope against in a straight up conflict.
2. both tried to strike a blow at there enemys Stratigic center,Sheriden and the Shadows capital and the Taliban with the Pentagon and WTC "the WTC becouse it represented the financial heart of the US and money is a powerful weapon"
3.both felt by striking such a blow it might make a difference in the longer struggle.

o.k Im going to leave it at that, Except I have an Interesting slant on our redshift measurements.
We know the redshift we observe in distant objects light show us that the object in question is moving away from us at a certain rate, no arguements there but (notice in life theres always a but!) the light from these objects takes millions of years to reach us depending on its distance so we arnt seeing its current rate of expansion only the rate at which it was once moving so we all confused now?
smile.gif
good becouse i am .

Dont be afraid of running out of answers
only of running out of questions.

------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>...not seeing its current rate of expansion only the rate at which it was once moving...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To a large extent yes -- but not entirely. Red shift is different for each galaxy and larger for those which look barely visible & contain only young "first generation" stars.

But there is a trickier part. For red shift, it is irrelevant if the source of light is moving away from you... or you from it. Red shift will also occur if you started moving away from the *light* before it reached you. If changes in your relative velocity are significant, they may distort the picture. Red shift will be larger if you accelarated away from the light, smaller if you went towards it.

For objects with a large red shift, most of it comes from the expansion of our universe. For nearby things, the movement/rotation of galaxies can produce noticable fluctuations. The amount red shift you should expect from a distant object also depends on whether the expansion of our universe is roughly constant, accelerating or slowing down.

Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with astronomy/cosmology to tell you (even in most basic terms) how one can eliminate these distortive factors and calculate the approximate dimensions & age of our universe from the red shift of various objects.

I can only say that with sufficiently clever modeling & math, it can be done is a way which seems likely to produce correct results.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>So are we all confused now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good.
We have always been confused.


[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited October 28, 2001).]
 
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Second I agree that we must take action against terrorism, but we alos must reevaluate our policies. I see it as similar to someone who has had a heart attack. Certanly one must take action to stabilize them and repair the damage. But they also must eliminat the causal factors that led to the heart attack.



[/quote]
You're right, but I would like to add a point to your analogy. To most of us it's obvious that after you repair the damage of a heart attack, you try to eliminate the bad habbits that led to it. But most of us also forget (or don't think it's necessary) to pass what we've learned to our next generation! And so the next generation end up having the same bad habbits like its father, wich usually causes a heart attack of somekind.
One of our most powerfull weapons against war is education, unfortunately education doesn't exist everywhere and even where it is present - it isn't always good enough.
 
I'm pretty sure Sheridan's Z'ha'dum strike satisfies the requirements for just war theology.

Let me check and get back to y'all.
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top