|
Author
|
Topic: I find myself...
|
DoctorWho
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 392
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 14:00
quote:
Originally posted by astyk:
That doesn't stop what I said being true: just look at the amount of experimental data they had 500 years ago. There were only very small numbers of experiments being performed. We have many, many times more data today than we did then, all of it accurate to a far greater degree.
Since data is what we use to find out if our science is wrong or right, this makes the science of today many, many times more reliable than that of 500 years ago.
If you had a book with all of the knowledge science could aquire written down perfectly, we would probably be wrong about almost everything; but we would also be much closer to the truth than we were 500 years ago.
And how many more experiments will be perfomed in the future, and how much more knowledge will be acquired. If we are probably wrong about almost everything as you put it. How much closer to the truth do you think people will get 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 years from now. I will grant you that it may take time to do it. But when you are talking about the future, who knows. In the late 1800's no one new what kind of power you could get from splitting an atom. They didn't even think it was possible. Fast forward less than 100 years, you have the atom bomb. I am not quick to judge things as beyond the laws of physics. I consider it more beyond the known laws of physics. Remeber it is mans imagination that sparks his invention. And things that we might think are impossible today may well become commonplace in the future.
Just the other day I saw an episode of Beyond 2000 where they were showing a torch that was being fueled by water. Yes, fire fueled by water. If they can make a torch using water as fuel, then it is theoretically possible to make a combustion engine fueled by water. I can imagine that if water fueled cars could become commonplace, it could seriously reduce our need for oil and help the environment.
--------------------
Laughter is like changing a baby's diapers. It doesn't solve anything but it sure improves the situation. Leo F. Buscaglia
Posts: 1677 | From: The TARDIS | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 14:43
quote:
Originally posted by neotatsu:
Ok, I've agreed with just about everything you've said in this entire thread, and considered cheering for some of your arguments, but I must point out your logistical flaw here. If we're assuming that the flood was indeed big enough to completely cover every bit of dry land on the planet, that would include mountains, which would mean the only obsticles they had to run into was mountains..
You're forgetting the transition periods.
During the early part of the flood, there'd be trees, your neighbors houses, small hills, bigger hills.....
Also, the story of sending the bird out as a scout, and it retrnng with a leaf in it's beak pretty strongly implies that once the waters subsided, they were able to steer towards the first mountain tops that appeared.
Anyway, I'm tired of talking about that silly boat story.
No more.
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10313 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
astyk
Maximum Newbie
Member # 2363
Rate Member
|
posted September 12, 2003 14:53
The fact that we may gather more experimental data does not mean the large amounts we have gathered now will be proven wrong. The things I am referring to as being of a very high probability of not being proven wrong are things such as it being impossible to exceed the speed of light, or the laws of thermodynamics. Even as little time ago as the 1800's we had far less data than the multitudes we do today. We may discover many new things, but I think phrases such as, "atoms cannot travel faster than light" will be remain true.
As I said, we will be wrong almost everywhere. However, I think I need to illustrate what I meant by that. If three men described the shape of the Earth, and one said it was flat, one said it was a sphere, and the other said it was like a sphere but it buldged around the middle, and was imperfect. The first two men are wrong; but the second is far, far less wrong than the first.
I've seen claims of "water-burning" devices before, and every one has been a hoax filled with pusedoscience. Seeing as how I have heard nothing about it, and burning water makes so little sense- breaking the bonds between oxygen and hydrogen to form them again immediatly after?- and that this would be a massive breakthrough, I severly doudt its truth. I would be both suprised and intrested if it was true.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 15:02
quote:
Originally posted by astyk:
In response to your comment that something-out-of-nothing presents a problem to you, we already know that paired anti-matter--matter particles come out of nothing in a vacuum constantly; this is possible because their total energy adds up to zero. It looks very likely that the total energy in the universe also adds up to zero, so I can't see how a similar principle couldn't apply.
In my University days, I knew a couple of very smart guys (the kind who get unsolicited letters from Yale, MIT etc begging them to come do their postgrad study there) who were very into this kind of thing. They carefully explained all the leading theories of the time, in simplest possible terms, and succeeded in nothing more than giving me a headache.
While its possible that the phenomenon you describe, or something like it, could explain the universe as a whole, I still find the 'its always been here' theory less likely to give me headaches.
Note, something like the Big Big/Big Crunch/Another Big bang ... theory fits my personal definition of 'always been here'.
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10313 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
astyk
Maximum Newbie
Member # 2363
Rate Member
|
posted September 12, 2003 15:21
Ah! not what I was expecting. I assumed you were reffering to one of many attempts to say that you can, quite literally, burn water. Of course, thats not so. This is just seperating the hydrogen from it and using that as a gas fuel. They actually do use hydrogen powered combustion engines already, especially in Iceland. They don't use water as a source there, but it will probably be used in the future. Hydrogen is the fuel, however, as in the device you have shown me.
My foolish misunderstanding- I apologise for my hostility to the idea. I shouldn't be so doudtful. But, yes, I can imagine that and it doesn't really serve the point you were using it for.
Oh, and TFD- "its always been there" is normally the one that gives me headaches, or at least leave me struggling to find an alternative...
Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 15:38
quote:
Originally posted by sconzey:
So, just a few questions... These are my main problems I have with evoloutionary theory. If these are answered then I may revise my beliefs.
Why doesn't irreducible complexity go against evoloution? The example I was shown was the bacterial flagellum. I was told that this has several thousand parts and there is no way for each to evolve seperately as it would not provide an evoloutionary advantage.
I dont know enough about bacteria to answer that specific question, but there's another oft-quoted example that I do know about.
It's often claimed that the eye is an example of irreducable complexity, because there are so many bits that have to work together, and without all of them, the whole doesn't work.
Now consider the ocean long ago, when all the critters were blind.
Imagine one creature (as a result of some mutation) gets born with little light-sensitive 'freckles' on its skin. Not an eye, it can just 'feel' light on its skin. It can sense light/dark, while it's neighbors are completely blind. This would obviously be of some benefit, albeit far less than a proper eye would be.
So this critter thrives at the expense of its neighbors, it has an evolutionary advantage.
Time passes, light-sensing spots have become old-hat, and one critter is born with it's light-sensing spots not flat on the surface, but in little pits. This improves the 'directionality' of the information, it can tell where the light is coming from, not very well, but better than it's neighbors. Another advantage.
Over time, the pits get deeper, as this improves the directionality.
Then a critter that already has 'feelers' gets a little patch of these pits on the end of its feelers. This works really well, as you can swivel the feelers this way and that, and get a very good idea of where the light's coming from. Another improvement, another competitive advantage over the critters who don't have it.
Being on the end of feelers like that, makes the pits prone to getting clogged with dirt, if a critter happened to have a thin layer of skin over the pit opening (thin enough to let light in) that would also be an advantage.
Over time, the creatures with more light-pits in their feelers have an advantage, until you end up with a little cluster of dozens/hundreds, each quite directional. Et voila! We have the typical insects 'compound eye'.
Note: All of the stages described above can be seen in real-live critters today, I'm not making any of this up.
So you see, the intemediate steps don't need to be fully functional, initially, they just have to be 'better than nothing', and later they have to be 'better than what came before'.
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10313 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DoctorWho
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 392
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 16:27
quote:
Originally posted by astyk:
Ah! not what I was expecting. I assumed you were reffering to one of many attempts to say that you can, quite literally, burn water. Of course, thats not so. This is just seperating the hydrogen from it and using that as a gas fuel. They actually do use hydrogen powered combustion engines already, especially in Iceland. They don't use water as a source there, but it will probably be used in the future. Hydrogen is the fuel, however, as in the device you have shown me.
My foolish misunderstanding- I apologise for my hostility to the idea. I shouldn't be so doudtful. But, yes, I can imagine that and it doesn't really serve the point you were using it for.
I believe it serves my point fairly well. I am sure many years ago, scientists would have scoffed at the idea of using water as a fuel source for combustion. They would have said it violates the laws of physics. But it may be commonplace in the future. There are many scientific truths that we understand today, but it may be that we have only scratched the surface, and have yet to realize the really interesting discoveries yet to be made. Every age of man before us thought they had reached the pinnacle of scientific discovery. Man in the future may disprove some things we think are solid facts today. Man may also find that some things we believe hold true, but if you throw something in we have yet to discover that scientific truth changes. I can't explain it clearer because mankind hasn't got there yet. I look at the past, and I see we have come far scientifically, but I also believe that the road ahead is still very long.
Edit: BTW if you notice it is both the hydrogen and the oxygen that the torch is using for fuel.
--------------------
Laughter is like changing a baby's diapers. It doesn't solve anything but it sure improves the situation. Leo F. Buscaglia
Posts: 1677 | From: The TARDIS | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
astyk
Maximum Newbie
Member # 2363
Rate Member
|
posted September 12, 2003 16:36
I think I basically agree with everything you said there. I thought you were using the hydrogen torch example as showing something that would have been thought to break the laws of physics in the past, say, 100 years. While people would not have understood how you could efficently seperate them, they could understand that it contains a viable fuel- and wouldn't have to break the laws of physics.
I agree with everything else you have said; I think the only points we disagree on are that I think that many of the scientific laws of today will survive, or are at the least true to materials we know today; and the extent to which we will gain power to transcend certain things, such as dimensions, ect. I agree perfectly that we have not reached the pinnacle of science, although I think you will actually find that in no age have the majority of scientists though the pinnacle had been reached since empirical science became widly studied.
I think everyone can see that the road ahead is long; there will always be more things to study, even if we ever were to create some "theory of the universe".
Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
DoctorWho
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 392
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 16:47
hmmm just had to bring up this little point from what you said.
From mkaku.org:
quote:
Dr. Michio Kaku is a Professor of Theoretical Physics. His goal is to complete Einstein's dream of a "theory of everything", a single equation that unifies the 4 fundamental forces of the universe.
He has written 9 books. Hyperspace and Visions, his most recent, are international best sellers and have been translated into many languages.
He hosts Explorations, a weekly radio program on science, which is carried on many stations across the country.
This guy gets into some extreme theoretical science in some of his interviews and books. If you haven't read any of his work, I think you might enjoy it.
--------------------
Laughter is like changing a baby's diapers. It doesn't solve anything but it sure improves the situation. Leo F. Buscaglia
Posts: 1677 | From: The TARDIS | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
astyk
Maximum Newbie
Member # 2363
Rate Member
|
posted September 12, 2003 16:57
Thanks for the recommendation; I haven't read any of his work, although I'm sure there are a lot of qualified people out there who would love to make a unified theory. I will note it down somewhere, though- if hes that popular, hes probably as easy to read as theoretical physics gets, and I could defintly do with a few more easy to read physics books.
Edit: I see he supports superstring theory; I guess that would give him as good a chance of anyone of living his dream.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
DoctorWho
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 392
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 17:02
No need to wonder. Go and check his articles.
<obvious> He explains it better than I can. </obvious>
--------------------
Laughter is like changing a baby's diapers. It doesn't solve anything but it sure improves the situation. Leo F. Buscaglia
Posts: 1677 | From: The TARDIS | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 19:30
quote:
Originally posted by astyk:
Oh, and I don't see how you could communicate using a black hole, since nothing can get out from past the event horizon.
Well, if two particles were - what's the term? - intertwined? as per Quantum physics, then some communication could happen, as all that speed-of-light-limit nonsense doesn't apply to Quantum Physics.
That's the problem (or should I say 'one of the problems'?) with modern Physics, Relativity says you can't have instantaneous communications, Quantum Theory says you can. Both are right.
Oh dear, I'm getting one of those headaches again...... ![[crazy]](graemlins/crazy.gif)
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10313 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noldoaran
Geek
Member # 2003
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 21:02
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Oh dear, I'm getting one of those headaches again......
your brain overheating?
Posts: 228 | From: California | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 21:43
quote:
Originally posted by Noldoaran:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Oh dear, I'm getting one of those headaches again......
your brain overheating?
Yes, in blatant disregard for the Second Law Of Thermodynamics. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10313 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dragonman97
SuperFan!
Member # 780
Member Rated:
|
posted September 12, 2003 21:54
Okay, folks, it's been a fortnight - how about we give this thing a break? I really don't think there's much more to be truly discussed - stuff is just getting bounced back and forth...
/me steps down from his soapbox.
--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...
Posts: 9039 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cheezi git
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1598
Member Rated:
|
posted September 13, 2003 01:19
quote:
Originally posted by astyk:
Oh, and I don't see how you could communicate using a black hole, since nothing can get out from past the event horizon.
actually hawking (amongst others) has shown that particles are emmitted from black holes
Posts: 1929 | From: the left nostril of my cat | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sconzey
Assimilated
Member # 2347
Member Rated:
|
posted September 13, 2003 01:55
I second dragonman... Lets give this thing a rest.
--------------------
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."
--Isaac Asimov
Posts: 490 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
astyk
Maximum Newbie
Member # 2363
Rate Member
|
posted September 13, 2003 07:12
I thought that was just the paired particles that appear and destroy each other everywhere, constantly? That one appeared on one side of the event horizon and another not, and that one gets dragged in, and the other escapes with a small amount of the black holes energy? Or is this something else coming from inside the event horizon?
Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xanthine
Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736
Member Rated:
|
posted September 13, 2003 09:10
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Noldoaran:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Oh dear, I'm getting one of those headaches again......
your brain overheating?
Yes, in blatant disregard for the Second Law Of Thermodynamics.
No, that's in line. Heat is the most degraded form of energy. Now if your brain were freezing...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists
Posts: 7665 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted September 13, 2003 14:43
quote:
Originally posted by astyk:
I thought that was just the paired particles that appear and destroy each other everywhere, constantly? That one appeared on one side of the event horizon and another not, and that one gets dragged in, and the other escapes with a small amount of the black holes energy? Or is this something else coming from inside the event horizon?
From vague memory, the event horizon 'vibrates' a little, so a particle inside the event horizon can find itself outside, without moving.
Of course, if you happen to find yourself an Angstrom or 2 outside an event horizon, you're still in pretty deep shit if you ask me.
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10313 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted September 13, 2003 15:23
I know I said I'd let the whole boat-trip debate drop, but then I saw an article about what happens to livestock after only 5 weeks at sea.
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10313 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
neotatsu
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1429
Member Rated:
|
posted September 14, 2003 02:13
quote:
Originally posted by CrawGator:
[QB] Originally posted by neotatsu:
Been there, did that the first 14-16 years of my life (I know, a big span, but I'm not sure exactly when it was that I started to actively think about it more often). Never had any signs, etc, etc... No 'miraculous feelings', or 'godly presence', etc, etc. I've since thought and said things similar to what you're proposing, and in all sincerity, meant them. Nothin. The *ONLY* people I have ever met who have had experiences like that on a regular basis aren't exactly very mentally or emotionally stable.. As a matter of fact, most of them my parents would talk to and say "isn't it amazing that despite (insert issue), god has given you this gift?", the way I look at it is the person is trying to give their own lives meaning.
Well neo I started out quite opposite of you. The first 19 years of my life were a big mess. I didn’t have any perspective or emotional stability until I sought after God. I don’t know, but if that is what is helping me keep my sanity, well then it is certainly cheaper than a psychiatrist. Issues are a part of life; it is a sign of maturity how you deal with them. For me, meaning in life is how you affect others. I want to be a positive influence. [/quote]
/puts his tongue in cheek and adds a dash of salt
That's actually my point.. All.. And I mean *ALL* the people I have ever met that claim to have a close relationship with god are people who grew up with a "messed up life", didn't grow up in a church going family... And on the other side of the coin, all the people I know who *did* grow up in a chruch going family are like myself. As for 'issues being a part of life', I must say, and I'm sorry for it, no shit ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) . I'm only 17 years old, and I've yet to live a day in my life that hasn't been filled with alot of issues.. Some god ya'll have if devout christian families live in crap and struggle to try and survive, barely, while the non-believers live alot better off.... Hell, the funniest thing I've heard in a long time about that kind of thing is a friend my dad had at work.. Everyone refered to him as "Satan" because his lifestyle and music.. my dad 'converted' him, and it wasn't but 2 months later his wife left him, he got fired, and lost his house (he wasn't just layed off either, he was acutally fired). Some great god ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
I'm curious... About what, you ask? EVERYTHING!
Posts: 2239 | From: Western WA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
neotatsu
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1429
Member Rated:
|
posted September 14, 2003 02:14
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by neotatsu:
Ok, I've agreed with just about everything you've said in this entire thread, and considered cheering for some of your arguments, but I must point out your logistical flaw here. If we're assuming that the flood was indeed big enough to completely cover every bit of dry land on the planet, that would include mountains, which would mean the only obsticles they had to run into was mountains..
You're forgetting the transition periods.
During the early part of the flood, there'd be trees, your neighbors houses, small hills, bigger hills.....
Also, the story of sending the bird out as a scout, and it retrnng with a leaf in it's beak pretty strongly implies that once the waters subsided, they were able to steer towards the first mountain tops that appeared.
Anyway, I'm tired of talking about that silly boat story.
No more.
Well damn, I didn't think it all the way through.. I bow to your superior logic, oh most famous of druids ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
--------------------
I'm curious... About what, you ask? EVERYTHING!
Posts: 2239 | From: Western WA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted September 14, 2003 02:36
quote:
Originally posted by neotatsu:
Well damn, I didn't think it all the way through.. I bow to your superior logic, oh most famous of druids
How could you doubt me?
Your sin is forgiven, my son.
Say 100 'Hail Druids' as pennance.
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10313 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
