go north, and turn right.

OUG,

I am unsure whether my last posting on thermodymics was responsible for your most recent comments.

For my part, here at OLO, I expect a little thrust and perry, but it is never my intent to disturb folk. That said, I stand by the information as presented, adding the comments are made in the Earthly Spirit of this forum.

George,

I do enjoy our discussions. Thank you.

Dan,

Your quote from Luke is appreciated. It seems to me the Late Carl Sagan was engaged in his Science and saw wonderment there. He really saw religion opposed to science and rational thinking. Based on Sagans writings writings and the title of one of his books, "Daemon Haunted Wotld", Sagan seems to have seen atheism as an emancipation from ignorance. To my mind Sagan didn't write with the same "I know more than you" arrogance, as does Dawkins.

Though not a theist, I would distance myself for Dawkins' stytle. As I said above, Dawkins is the Sells of the other team.

Where my doubt lies is in known histories, especially 700 BCE to 700 CE. I recognize the Bible as a signigicant works and Jesus as an exceptional person.

Sells,

Do you see the Christian god handing out "one size fits all punishment"? (see above)

GrahamY,

In Christian theology, do you believe one must first believe in the Holy Spirit to sin against the Holy Spirit?

Regards to all,

O.

Pretty much the same way we do on Earth, David.
Our galaxy is a spiral disc, with rotation. It can therefore be said to have a North Pole, and a South Pole, and logically East would be in the direction of rotation, although...
Considering the sense of rotation, the Galaxy, at the Sun's position, is rotating toward the direction of Right Ascension 21:12.0, Declination +48:19. This shows that it rotates "backward" in the Galactic coordinate system, i.e. the Galactic North Pole is actually a physical South Pole with respect to galactic rotation (defined by the direction of the angular momentum vector).
http://seds.org/messier/more/mw
It was a good (smart alecky) question, but not quite what George was talking about, I think. The problem is whether we are talking about Euclidian geometry, or not.
If I take a surveyor's compass, and place my eye over the 'south' pole and look across the 'north' pole, I might see a tree in the foreground, a mountain in the background, and a star behind the mountain. Clearly, I would have every right to say all three objects are 'North' of me.
If I could freeze time in that instant (and thus avoid the confusion of rotation, parallax, etc. etc.,) and walk -forthrightly, with dogged determination- in the precise direction of the star -whilst ever keeping at least one foot on the ground- Logically I would come to the north pole; but to do so, I would have deviated by at least 90 degrees from my original plotted 'northerly' course.
In which direction did I turn, east or west? As I started on the 152nd meridian, I would suggest west, although I admit east would have got me there with equal facility. (the real answer would be 'down', I would think).
George's observation becomes trickier when I actually arrive at the North Pole.
If I stand exactly over the Pole, (with one eye shut) no matter which way I turn I must look south.
But wait!

oliver<<OUG,I am unsure whether my last posting on thermodymics was responsible for your most recent comments...>...not in the least oliver, i appriciate your intelligence and wit..[just not intrested in the material cosmic speculations,..

nor commenting on that divergent topic...i mention stuff i come across..if or when it seems to apply..[not because its intrests me but that i feel it might intrest others

<<For my part, here at OLO,I expect a little thrust and perry,but it is never my intent to disturb folk.>.ME TOO MY BROTHER,

<<That said,..I stand by the information as presented,>>see there we diverge..[i dont vouch for anything i quote,..i put it up as it was put to me..to make of as people chose..

i like to feel i stoped caring about who said anything..[rather than in what context/timming of it,as it was put..[seeking the reason behind the info so to speak..[why now ,why here .why at this time,..only occasionally who]

<<adding the comments are made in the Earthly Spirit of this forum.>>..ok in that spirit i would like to think..[or add] that 4 lateral directions is too;..two dimentional thinking for me,

i see up and down along with north/east south west..[seeing likely in space 6 possably directions,,further, that in space logiclly north would be the center of the particulat solar system..[ie the sun]...

yet fail to see what this change of topic has in way of relivance to the topic heading...[thus see it as a destraction,..designed to get us off discussing thiestic and athiestic divergence]..

[or or simply as the means to prevent any real possability of achieving any real convergance]..possably raised by those who thrive on continued divergence paradime,..that loves the divide and con-queer, and who would thus hate to see any real getting together of those supposedly in opposing camps

but i could be wrong..yet know in my heart im right
god is love[those who can[or would] lie..about god can lie about anything,..

as long as it keeps us divided..[or destracted]they will win..[peace is not everyones goal]..some really get off on the divisive name-calling..[in both camps]

Grim,
>> Polaris is north of the north pole<<
Let me repeat, you are leaving the two-dimensional surface of our Earth (that Hawking had in mind when explaining that you cannot leave our four-dimensional space-time) into the surrounding space containing Polaris. Also, Earth’s North Pole and Galactic North Pole have nothing in common, as david f hinted at.

>>when I actually arrive at the North Pole<<
ditto, since you are three-dimensional, you can look upwards, which a creature trapped in the two-dimensional world would not be able to.

With all due respect, you probably did not understand Hawking‘s metaphor trying to explain how it does not make sense to ask (the physical, not “metaphysical“, question) what was before the Big Bang. Until something better is accepted, perhaps an extension of Einstein‘s model, our space-time can be understood only as intrinsically connected to our Universe: No universe means no time (or space) you can talk about from within science, using scientific terminology, whatever else “metaphysical time“, that philosophers and theologian sometimes refer to, might be. (And if there exist other universes, they will have their own space-time incommensurable with ours; they might coexist with ours but the question of them existing before or after our universe would not make sense.)

I know, these things are not very intuitive. I suspect this is at least partly due to the fact that it is hard for our brain to contemplate entities whose existence is independent of the flow of time that our brain-activities are so dependent on. One exception is the (Platonic) world of mathematics where some of us believe “mathematical entities live” and mathematicians can discover and “observe“ them. (By the way, apparently for these reasons it is hard to accept even for some Christians that God might just exist, without assigning to Him temporal attributes, without asking what he did before He created our universe, etc.).

Anyhow, OUG is right, we have drifted too far from the topic of the article.

george<<we have drifted too far from the topic of the article.>>yes but lets egsamine where we are

i have been a big bang dude ever since i heard the concept[but it never really made sense[a single big bang spontainiously occureing[in time i realised that a unique'change of state'[like when water becomes ice]..might just provide a certain predictable'change of state',..that sets the big collapse back into the big expantion..[till in time matter sepperates so far it collapse inwards till it again changes state and bang..[again]..add infinitum..a'new'..in the beginning..[again]..with the only surity that god was before[and after..EACH big bang]

a bang so precice that time replays endlessly EGSACTLY the same..[thus god knows all..[he has witnessed it uncountable times..[into eternity,allway's has..allways will]..

the big bang..[in the beginning..let there be light,big bang,was a part of my religiously held beliefs

in time i heard the expanding/earth-theory and see that the big change of state..[not bang]..is a compression/decompression,cycle..where relitive movements..remain the same..[but the'matter'within the expantion expands as the pressure lessons

[the further from the big bang,the less presure..[the bigger the universe expands..[but as we are expanding along with every possable measure it all remains relitive..[if you like the ruler by which we measure it expands along with everything else]

as the matter expands,other changes of state occur,in prior times more density was..[thus the deep],..but in time as less back presure,the firmament emerged..[to us it would'seem'like moving in honey[then water and in time like air..[each phase includes a'change of state...along with a time/perception/change

[time seems to be speeding-up because we are nearing the final change,..from this'normality',..to the next disassotiate[air]stage,..as time moves really fast,..till eventually the process reverses,..till again the big bang..[let there be light is heard]

govt cant tell us..because our faith is less than our fear..[or because its too busy exploiting this temporal/advantage..[they are much dumber than they realise]..anyhow thats how it goes..

feel/free to return to normality..but realise this has been going on for ever..[repeating endlessly the same play..[thats how come god knows it all works out just fine..[in the end,..because really there is no end..[a dry laugh is heard..lol