 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Boring science stuff we all believe...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Sep 04 - 07:26 PM The purpose of this thread is to balance all that flighty New Age mumbo jumbo and unverifiable spiritual stuff that irritates Pied Piper and various other down-to-earth people on this forum so much...with some nice factual stuff that will make them feel good, and that we can all agree on. Well, I hope so, anyway... Ahem! One plus one equals two. There ya go. Feeling better? Everyone...please feel free to contribute further examples of factual stuff that is absolutely proven, 100% verifiable, and about as friggin' boring at this point as counting up all the blades of grass on your front lawn... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 24 Sep 04 - 07:34 PM If you add a pint of sand to a pint of marbles you don't get two pints of samd/marble mixture. I hated to tell you this. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 24 Sep 04 - 07:35 PM I knew right away when I saw the title that this was your thread, LH. ;-) P.S. I think that Pied Piper guy is a bit obsessed with that New Age mumbo jumbo stuff. He keeps starting threads about it. Actually, now that I think about it, is seems like most of the threads here in the Mudcat about New Age airy-fairy stuff are started by people who "claim" they don't believe in it. Hmmmm... Well, so there's my "fact". Most airy-fairy New Age threads in the Mudcat are started by people who don't want to admit that they believe in what they're posting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Sep 04 - 07:51 PM I have wondered about that too, Carol. I think they have a really deep emotional need for "New Age Mumbo Jumbo". Everyone needs something they can look down on, right? It's like how Republicans and Democrats NEED each other in order to find motivation to continue on. Quite fascinating. Okay, here's another boring fact or two: Fresh water freezes into a solid (called ice) if you lower the temperature to 0 degrees Celsius or below. When you drop something, gravity makes it fall down...as long as it's heavier than air. Or...well, if it's in a vacuum, then it will fall down even if it isn't heavier than air. But vacuums are hard to find, except under controlled laboratory conditions. Isn't this fun? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Sep 04 - 07:58 PM If you mix the primary colors yellow and blue, you get green! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Lighter Date: 24 Sep 04 - 07:58 PM If you drop a cannonball and a feather from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the cannonball will hit the ground first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:01 PM Oh! I like that one. Very good. If the cannonball lands on George Bush's head it will kill him. If the feather does, he will not suffer any notable injury. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: kendall Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:02 PM The longest distance between two points is... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Ebbie Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:02 PM Tomorrow, the sun will come up. Or the earth will turn just enough to expose one side to the sun. Whatever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bobert Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:05 PM "...vacuums are hard to find..." False. The P-Vine leaves the danged thing where ever she likes and I more often than not find the hard way. Ouch! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:07 PM The jury's still out on that one, Kendall. :-) A circle has 360 degrees. It's round. All points on its circumference are equidistant from its center, which can be described as an infinitely small point. A square is a 4-sided figure, all of its sides being of equal dimension. Gawd...I could fall asleep any time here... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:08 PM Black is darker than white. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bobert Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:09 PM Oh, science? Sorry.... How about: Nuthin's impossible except peein' in a naked man's pocket? I think that gets up into the 100% range... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:09 PM Timely thread for me in that my seven year old daughter, during our usual late night talk last night, was informing me that we don't know anything for sure. In fact, she said, and I quote: "We don't even know, for example, that one plus one equals two." Unfortunately I had to end the discussion right there as I knew I was in above my head. As I was backing away, she said "We don't even know if the Bible is the Word of God. Only God knows." I was OUTTA there. . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:10 PM (3x3)+(4x4)=5x5 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:24 PM A pound of marbles added to a pound of sand will weigh two pounds. A pint by volume (as noted above) of each, combined, will not occupy two pints worth of volume. Volume and weight are therefore demonstrably different. An object falling freely in Earth's field of gravity will accelerate towartd Earth's center of mass at a rate close to 32 feet per second more for each second of falling, or 32 feet per second per second, also called 32 feet per second squared. Yawn. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Mrs Olive Whatnoll Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:34 PM 1 excaped parrot + one 'usband 'oo is out puttin' up reward posters = a nice quiet 'ouse. You can lead a man to water, but 'e won't drink it if e's got any access to alcoholic beverages what so ever. Anyfink a man tells you about 'is vital statisticks can be counted on to be inflated by a factor of no less than 120 Per Cent, minimmum! And in most cases it's worse than that! Ask a Scotsman, and you can raise that factor to 300%. There's no use askin' an Irishman, cos 'e's probably too drunk to use it anyway! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:48 PM Dogs (Border Collies, specifically) can smell or otherwise detect cancer cells. Bombardier beetles of the genus Brachinus evolved to manufacture chemicals in different glands, and, when the animal is threatened, these are squirted into a chamber near the rear end of the beetle, where they explode, forcing noxious (caustic and boiling-hot) liquid out through a directed nozzle at the enemy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 24 Sep 04 - 08:56 PM An African horsefly called Tabanus lays eggs in pools of water in which the larvae live and feed. Each larva buries itself in the mud and pupates. As mud dries out, it cracks, and there is a risk that a crack will tear right across the grub's refuge. Before burying itself in its own pupation chamber, it first corkscrews its way down into the mud in a spiral. It then corkscrews its way back to the surface in an opposite spiral. Finally, it dives into the mud straight down the centre between the two spirals, and that is its resting place through the bad times until water returns. Therefore the larva is encased in a cylinder of mud whose circular boundary has been weakened in advance by the preliminary spiral burrowing. When a crack snakes across the drying mud, if it hits the edge of the cylindrical column, instead of cutting straight across the middle it goes instead in a curved bypass around the edge of the cylinder, and the larva is spared. (I told you you should read Dawkins, LH. It's not boring.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 24 Sep 04 - 09:00 PM I'm with your daughter, and feel a swell of pride to know she exists, Heric. Indivisible monism holds, rather reasonably, that there are not two of any thing, because every individual thing is a singular instance. This leaves math a useful conceptual tool, but conceptually wrong as a proposition. 1 and one are just what they are, we merely choose to regard them as two. Has she been reading David Hume, or what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: mack/misophist Date: 24 Sep 04 - 09:15 PM The number of all possible integer numbers is less than the number of all possible points on a line, which is in turn less than the number of all posswible geometric solids. Figure it out for yourselves. It's obvious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 24 Sep 04 - 09:20 PM Ohmygod, she's seven now, heric? How time flies. Well, you already know what I think about your daughter's perspicacity and intelligence. You've got a pair of winners there, and no doubt about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 24 Sep 04 - 09:24 PM Fred: I've stopped asking her. The answer is always "I was just thinking." When she was five she used to torment me with questions about the begoinning of time, and about God making himself - how and when (and where). Thanks Carol (she's an artist as well. . .) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 24 Sep 04 - 09:36 PM Good on ya heric -- please encourage her, no matter how rough it is ion you personally -- it is a noble sacrifice for the good of civilization as a whole! Mathematically, 1+1=2, because the rules are s defined. In the real world, the absolute uniqueness of an object means there is no true category (as Fred describes above) and in many other ways a great deal of our "knowledge" is elective. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Teresa Date: 24 Sep 04 - 09:52 PM There are billions and billions of stars in the universe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Sep 04 - 09:56 PM And the light we see emanating from them happened a very long time ago...so they might not actually BE there anymore! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine Date: 24 Sep 04 - 09:57 PM An infinitely small point is called a singularity. A black hole is a singularity. (I think) The sensitivity of dogs' noses is highly overrated. My dog needs to stick his nose right into a turd which I can smell from ten feet away. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Sep 04 - 10:04 PM Yes, but he LIKES the way it smells! Don't you stick your nose in things you like the smell of, John? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 04 - 11:09 PM boring science stuff some of us believe: available living space and food supply is finite---population is expanding. The math is not pretty. in a few million years, a dumb ape-like creature's decendants can become a rocket scientist...or even j0hn from Hull. stopping distance in a vehicle increases on a downhill slope, on ice or water, and varies according to the amount of alcohol in the blood of the driver. bullets from a legal gun will kill the innocent just as easily as from an illegal gun. houses built in flood plains and on ocean fronts get flooded and blown away. Entropy will get you if you don't watch out..........in fact, entropy will get you if you do watch out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: freda underhill Date: 24 Sep 04 - 11:17 PM the world is round nuclear power is safe and iraq has weapons of mass distruction (sorry) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Sep 04 - 11:19 PM What you see is what you get. (or not) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 Sep 04 - 11:35 PM Western societies privilege science over other forms of knowlege or knowing, thus enabling this discussion to take place among members of those Western societies. Western societies are not good at questioning (challenging) science (aside from a few issues, such a medical topics where ethos sometimes manages to trump science.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 25 Sep 04 - 12:27 AM ahem...Little Hawk...I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Lonesome EJ Date: 25 Sep 04 - 01:20 AM Bob mounts a bicycle in Steubenville. He pedals uphill for three hours, then pedals downhill for 1 hour at double the uphill speed. He arrives in Martinsburg at 5:45 PM. Meanwhile, Bob's friend Mike leaves Steubenville two hours earlier than Bob. Bob walks the uphill stretch at a speed of 2 miles per hour. Exhausted, he rests for 1/2 hour on a large rock near the road. At 12:15, Mike notices Bob pedaling past. Filled with jealousy and rage, he throws a 12 oz rock at Bob but misses, putting a hole in the windshield of a milk truck traveling 30 miles per hour and bound from Warrenton which is 14 miles away. The truck driver stops and chases Mike toward Steubenville for 15 minutes. Mike is a track athlete and is able to run at a speed of 7 mph. The truck driver has a weak heart, and chest pains limit him to a speed of 5 mph. If the truck driver stops after two minutes and resumes the pursuit in his truck at a top speed of 67 mph, will the truck driver be able to run Mike down and hide the body in some fallen timber before Bob reaches Steubenville where he is having an affair with Mike's widow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Sep 04 - 01:45 AM LOL! An inspired entry, LEJ. I'm glad to see you're back in form. That reminds me of many similar and truly detestable questions I was asked in high school science and math courses. The people who dream up such stuff and inflict it on innocent youngsters should be suspended naked from coconut palms and assaulted by swarms of irritated iguanas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bev and Jerry Date: 25 Sep 04 - 02:14 AM Sorry, Little Hawk but: "Fresh water freezes into a solid (called ice) if you lower the temperature to 0 degrees Celsius or below." Only a at a pressure of one atmosphere. "A square is a 4-sided figure, all of its sides being of equal dimension." That's a rhombus. If it has four right angles in it it's a square. You see, here on Mudcat we can agree on nothing. Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 25 Sep 04 - 02:39 AM A square is someone who's not cool or hip. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Gurney Date: 25 Sep 04 - 02:44 AM Not even on the pint of sand added to.... I'd contend that a pint of sand added to the marbles doesn't make two pints, but marbles added to the sand WOULD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: DMcG Date: 25 Sep 04 - 03:08 AM Scientific facts are always disputable, because either you don't say everything about them (dropped things fall at 32m/s/s? Not on the moon) or you don't say them precisely enough (32? Are you sure its not 31.99967523?) Scientific theories are always disputable. You can always replace a theory with a better theory (more accurate, simpler, more complete ...). Scientists are a completely different matter, and will insist they are right in spite of the above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Teresa Date: 25 Sep 04 - 03:25 AM Well, I have to admit that I've always found science fascinating. And the fascination level depends on the one presenting it. People like Richard feynman, Carl sagan, and Isaac Asimov had a real passion for knowledge, and it showed. Now, if someone taught any subject/discipline, including spirituality, in a dispassionate manner, I'd be bored to tears. T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: freda underhill Date: 25 Sep 04 - 04:03 AM a nut is something soft and tasty inside a hard shell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine Date: 25 Sep 04 - 04:08 AM Lonesome EJ - No, he won't. Not according to my calculations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Georgiansilver Date: 25 Sep 04 - 04:30 AM I'm sure this came from another thread but here goes anyway with due respect to the person who submitted it. "If a man wishes to fight you, walk a mile in his shoes(now here comes the fact bit) That way you will be a mile away and he will have no shoes" Best wishes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: kendall Date: 25 Sep 04 - 04:42 AM When it comes to lobsters, LH is right. There are two colors, blue and yellow that make up the green of a normal lobster. I have seen countless yellow lobsters, and countless blue ones. They are simply missing the other color.In a couple of very rare cases, I have seen one with yellow on one side and blue on the other; split right down the middle as if painted that way. Regardless, they all turn red when cooked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Doug Chadwick Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:10 AM "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it." George Orwell - Nineteen Eighty-Four |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:48 AM E does not equal mc squared, it equals 2mc. Energy is circumfral. Eistein thought it was areal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Sep 04 - 08:25 AM Lonesome EJ The problem is insoluble! Insufficient data supplied! The driver, having stopped because he was totally buggered, decided to go back to get his truck. But if he was totally buggered, how long did he roll around on the grass clutching his chest before he got his breath back, and just how fast did he crawl back to his truck? Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Chris Green Date: 25 Sep 04 - 08:28 AM "Did you know you've got four miles of tubing inside you? This means none of the food in your body is ever really fresh." Peter Cook |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 04 - 09:53 AM Light seemingly travels 186,000 miles in one second. We are roughly 93 Million miles from our sun; it takes light from the sun about eight minutes (480 seconds) to reach us. In one hour, light travels about 744 million miles. There are 8,760 hours in one year - a light year is about 6 trillion miles. The nearest star to our sun is four light years away. Our galaxy is about 160,000 light years in diameter, and about 2000 light years thick. We are located near the outer edge, on an inner spiral arm. We may not like it, but that is where we are. We are thinking of moving to a better neighborhood. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 25 Sep 04 - 10:59 AM At the rate Dubya is applying his knowledge of political science these days, the planet will get there in wee bits. . . (that of course is conjecture not a fact) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Nigel Parsons Date: 25 Sep 04 - 11:07 AM There is no such thing as "a perfect vacuum". but the Dyson works pretty well! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 25 Sep 04 - 11:22 AM Gravity. Geez, you fall down, you hit the ground, floor, or whatever. You always fall down. Boooooooooooooooring! Now, if (on Earth) you could randomly fall, say, sidewise or up or on a diagonal, that would be exciting science. But noooooooo, always down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 25 Sep 04 - 11:24 AM there is no need for a 'vacuum cleaner'...vacuums are already clean |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Sep 04 - 12:39 PM We are proceeding nicely. I note that the usual group of skeptics and scoffers who descend rapturously on any thread that is about God, ESP, altered states of consciousness, UFOs & AFOs, spiritual healing, and all those kind of great subjects....are conspicuous by their absence here! Here where their sacred cow, science, is being saluted by the rest of us! What does this tell me? They are secretly attracted to the very things they are supposedly so skeptical about. Why? Well, perhaps it is because they need something to be in opposition to in order to bolster their sense of superiority? If I had started a thread about AFOs here, I can guarantee they would all have dropped in by now just to tell me how wrong I am... :-) Bev and Jerry - Yes, of course. That's the lovely thing about science...there's always one more thing you can say which shows how inadequate the other guy's effort in explaining anything is. Hmmm. Okay...water is a liquid. That means that it flows. It follows the path of least resistance and adjusts itself to match the inner shape of any container that it fills. Now...tell me what I have left out. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Chris Green Date: 25 Sep 04 - 12:50 PM Phlogiston theory - basically that phlogiston was the invisible element that made things burn - was widely accepted until comparatively recently. Anyone interest in knowing more (or alternatively having difficulty getting off to sleep click here Sweet dreams! Chris |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 25 Sep 04 - 12:57 PM Nature abhors a vacuum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 04 - 01:05 PM Vacuums don't think much of nature, either!! Cf. George W Bush. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Sep 04 - 01:23 PM On the contrary! Nature loves a vacuum, and rushes in to fill it with absolute delight. If Nature abhored the vacuum, Nature would run the other way. Men feel kind of the same way about...you know... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Teresa Date: 25 Sep 04 - 01:58 PM agreed, re: scoffers. :> The term "perfect circle" is redundant. T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 04 - 02:13 PM Little Hawk: I think you may be revealing something..the concept of love being to rush in and change the nature of the object (a vacuum, which is no longer a vacuum once Nature has had its way). Think about it, you ole bachelor, you!! :>))) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 25 Sep 04 - 02:25 PM A number of things cited above cry out for quibbles: "Fresh water freezes into a solid (called ice) if you lower the temperature to 0 degrees Celsius or below." At sea level. -------- "A circle has 360 degrees. It's round. All points on its circumference are equidistant from its center, which can be described as an infinitely small point." The number of degrees is not really scientific fact. A degree is an arbitrary concept dreamed up to help in understanding observed geometric facts, but it is artificial. The no-dimension center, while helpful, is an abstract concept. ------- "A square is a 4-sided figure, all of its sides being of equal dimension." This is merely a definition, better stated as "A 4-sided rectangular figure, all of its sides being of equal dimension, is called a square. ---- "A nut is something soft and tasty, inside a hard shell." I thought that was called a lobster. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Sep 04 - 02:29 PM Picky! Picky! Picky! Pedantic! Boring. Way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 25 Sep 04 - 02:37 PM "A circle is a round straight line with a hole in the middle" girl in 3rd grade |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 25 Sep 04 - 04:08 PM What is a straight line? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Nigel Parsons Date: 25 Sep 04 - 04:12 PM LH: "Hmmm. Okay...water is a liquid. That means that it flows. It follows the path of least resistance and adjusts itself to match the inner shape of any container that it fills. Now...tell me what I have left out. :-) " You had to ask! Water is generally a liquid at temperatures betwee 0 degrees centigrade and 100 degrees centigrade. The exceptions occur when the ambient pressure is not standard. In a "pressure cooker" water boils at a higher temperature, thus cooking your food quicker. Near the top of Everest, where the atmospheric pressure is much lower, boiling water will hardly be hot enough to make a cup of tea. water is a liquid. That means that it flows Water is a fluid (as are gasses). flu·id n. A continuous, amorphous substance whose molecules move freely past one another and that has the tendency to assume the shape of its container; a liquid or gas. (American Heritage Dictionary) Cheers Nigel (leaving himself wide-open for further correction) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 25 Sep 04 - 04:51 PM obviously, a straight line is one what don't wiggle around as it goes, but continues on the same course, and if it meets its tail........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:09 PM What's a line? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:14 PM About ten pound. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: JohnInKansas Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:29 PM An infinitely small point is called a singularity. A black hole is a singularity. (I think) The well known "search for dark matter," if successful, would show that we are in a universe that contains enough matter to slow any light originating inside it, and eventually turn it around so that it "falls back in." i.e. - that we are IN a black hole. (The corollary - if we are in a black hole - is that nobody outside our "universe" can see anything that we, on the inside, do.) "Bigness" and "smallness" have no meaning in the context of black holes, and we know(?) that our universe contains other black holes, and those black holes could quite reasonably contain other black holes. From the "inside" of any one of those black holes, their "universe" might well appear larger than ours - which "contains" theirs. If there is enough matter in "our universe" it will eventually stop expanding and collapse back to something "smaller." If there's someone "outside" our black hole, we will continue to look like a black hole to them, but we don't have a model for what we'll look like to those of us on the inside. I can't wait to see what happens... John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Teresa Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:45 PM Ok, so I can't resist. ;);) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Teresa Date: 25 Sep 04 - 05:58 PM Or this, or This version of the Periodic Table Oh, this is supposed to be boring. Oops. ;) T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Wolfgang Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:07 PM Once more, Little Hawk trying hard to prove that he can talk about things of which he has not the slightest knowledge. Others have pointed out that you could not even get the definition of 'square' correctly. But is is even worse than that. That's not science, it is a definition which could be changed. It is not an empirical result. It is like the definition of, say, 'arson' in law and law isn't a science. The definition of a square may be boring to you, but even the correct definition of a square would be no scientific fact. Not each fact of life ("JFK has been murdered", "Canada lies north of the USA", "Carl Lewis has won nine gold medals", "the boat from ... to ... leaves at 8 45 in the morning") is scientific stuff. Write about things like flowers, love, happiness and whatever but make sure you know what you are writing about. Of science you know nothing. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Teresa Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:24 PM I see no reason for the personal attacks. Is it not possible to disagree with someone without attacking them personally? :( T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:30 PM Water has memory, and remembers things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Joe_F Date: 25 Sep 04 - 06:37 PM If you are 5 feet away from me, you are seeing me as I was 5 nanoseconds ago. There is no such thing as a brown light. Only a unique solution need have all the symmetries of the problem. Every number is extremely small: almost all other numbers are very much larger. The four responses to threat: (1) fear & flight, (2) rage & fight, (3) paralysis, (4) manipulative activity. One compass points north. Two compasses point at each other. I am a warm region of space-time bounded (near enough) by a birth, a skin, and a death. Suck, squeeze, bang, blow. Internal combustion makes it go. The vast majority of humans have more than the average number of legs. To understand something means to derive it from quantum mechanics, which nobody understands. You need two out of three: altitude, airspeed, and a brain. The Pacific was named by people who were used to the North Atlantic. Whether or not we find what we are seeking is idle, biologically speaking. The human species is gregarious but not social. Perspective means you are not in the picture. Artificial intelligence means designing machines we understand as badly as we understand ourselves. Prose: Earth is turning us into its shadow. Poetry: The sun is setting. Solid-state physics is the physics of dirt effects. An exact science is one that makes good approximations. How many guacas are there in a guacamole? Avocadro's number. When we speak of the physical world, we mean that it is capable of containing physicists. One picture is worth a thousand words, and takes as much disk space as a million. A cosmology is an autobiography of the universe. Sex is an impediment to reproduction whose function is to complicate life. Everything you do costs money, dissipates heat, and makes crumbs. Successful systems accumulate parasites. Think of it as evolution in action. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 04 - 07:22 PM We have departed from the station, ladies and gentlemen. Please refrain from putting your hands out the windows, or waving at the natives. The management accepts no responsibility for the impact of fecal matter on those who violate these regulations. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: kendall Date: 25 Sep 04 - 08:05 PM The whale is not an animal at all. It is an insect, and it eats bananas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Lyle Date: 25 Sep 04 - 09:39 PM Amos says: "...or 32 feet per second per second, also called 32 feet per second squared." Oops, Amos, it is WRITTEN as (sec)^2 but that is understood as a shorthand way to write it - the seconds are NOT squared! CarolC asks: "What is a straight line?" Answer: One that is not gay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 25 Sep 04 - 10:24 PM Guest,Lyle, I think maybe I fed you a straight line. ;-) (bada-boom) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Sep 04 - 12:03 AM But Lyle: (feet/second)/second, evaluated, is ft/(second^2) and it is a simple "seconds squared" for any algebraic evaluation. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Sep 04 - 12:38 AM "There is no such thing as a brown light." Wrong. Martin Gibson is the 'Brown Light' of Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 02:09 AM Acceleration of gravity If you drop an object relatively near the Earth, it will speed up according to the acceleration of gravity (g). Object speeds up When you let go of the object, its velocity is zero. * Since g = 32 ft/s2 = 9.8 m/s2, the velocity will be 32 ft/s (9.8 m/s) after one second. * Because the object is accelerating, the velocity after 2 seconds will be 2 x 32 ft/s = 64 ft/s (19.6 m/s). * After 10 seconds, the velocity will be 10 x 32 ft/s = 320 ft/s or 98 m/s. You can see how the velocity of the object gets faster and faster. Terminal velocity Although a falling object will continue to accelerate until it is made to stop, like when it hits the ground, air resistance will slow down that acceleration. Air resistance is approximately proportional to the square of the velocity, so as the object falls faster, the air resistance increases until it equals the force of gravity. The object has reached what is called its terminal velocity. There have been many calculations on what the terminal velocity would be for a penny dropped from a high building or airplane. Because a penny would probably tumble, the calculations can become highly complex. One estimate is that a penny dropped from a high building will accelerate until it reaches around 230 mph. Some dispute such a high terminal velocity. A better example of terminal velocity is that of dropping a baseball. Once a falling baseball reaches 94 miles per hour or 42 meters/second, it would remain at the velocity and no longer accelerate. FROM: www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: jonm Date: 26 Sep 04 - 05:48 AM Water is the only substance known to man whose solid state has a lower density than the liquid (all other environmental conditions being equivalent). When a liquid of another substance, such as ethyl alcohol, freezes, the solid falls due to the action of gravity. Heat energy loss from the upper surface (by the process of convection due to differential densities between regions of differing temperatures) is therefore a rapid process and the liquid turns to solid very rapidly. Any creature which can exist in the alcohol (students, for example) will be left floundering on the surface to die in very short order. When water freezes, the rising solid ice forms a skin which slows down this loss of heat energy considerably. Living creatures can survive under ice for considerable time as a result (and assuming they can access the dissolved oxygen in the water). This is the reason life on this planet has survived ice ages. NASA has finally recognised the fact, after the scientific community has been pointing it out for a generation, and shifted its search for life on other planets to those which have water in evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah Date: 26 Sep 04 - 07:44 AM I love Little Hawk's logic! Scoffers are attracted to New Age bull-shit because they secretly need it in their lives. On the same principle: Docters are attracted to illness because they secretly need it in their lives. Nope - this man is not a scientist. He should stick with ley lines and crystals where any dickhead can be, and usually is, an expert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: kendall Date: 26 Sep 04 - 07:47 AM the elephant is like a rope. no a tree In other words, if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 26 Sep 04 - 08:04 AM The last few Doctors I went to seemed to be attracted to illness because they need it in their lives, but this is merely anecdotal, and further studies under controlled conditions will be needed before we can form any firm judgements one way or the other as to whether ah to hell with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Sep 04 - 09:14 AM About 40% of all auto fatalities involve drunk drivers. Since 60% involve sobriety, you are better off driving drunk. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Sep 04 - 10:03 AM But then, Spaw, they would ALL drive drunk, and thus it would THEN become safer to drive sober... But then... My head hurts... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 26 Sep 04 - 11:52 AM If there were no illnesses, there would be no doctors. Doctors need illness in order to exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Lyle Date: 26 Sep 04 - 12:35 PM John in Kansas says: " But Lyle: (feet/second)/second, evaluated, is ft/(second^2) and it is a simple "seconds squared" for any algebraic evaluation. Common elementary mistake, John. Look at brucie's excellent example. If evaluated as brucie has properly done, the results are: after 1sec velocity is 32ft/sec after 2 sec velocity is 64ft/sec after 3 sec velocity is 96ft/sec after 4 sec velocity is 128ft'sec If calculated by squareing the seconds, the results are: after 1 sec velocity is 32*1^2 = 32ft/sec after 2 sec velocity is 32*2^2 = 128ft/sec after 3 sec velocity is 32*3^2 = 288ft/sec after 4 sec velocity is 32*4^2 = 512ft/sec And a big THANK YOU to CarolC - don't often get a "line" like that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 26 Sep 04 - 01:07 PM The "second per second" is CALLED "per second squared" but I don't think it means one should square the number of seconds. Every acceleration value is computed ONE second after the previous one. Anyway, the expression is just a shorthand. It would not make sense mathematically I believe. There is no such thing as a squared second, in the real world, obviously. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 01:56 PM Dear Ooh-Aah, "He should stick with ley lines and crystals where any dickhead can be, and usually is, an expert." My, but you are a spiteful person, aren't you? Why do YOU know about ley lines? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 26 Sep 04 - 02:02 PM Come out of the closet, Ooh-Ahh! We know you're in there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 26 Sep 04 - 02:16 PM This second per second business now has me confused! I think different posters are talking about two different ideas -- really everyone is correct. As I understand the conversations, you MUST keep the sec^2 notation with the UNITS when using a "plug and chug" formula, but that doesn't mean that you square the number preceding it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Lyle Date: 26 Sep 04 - 02:46 PM No, Mary, as both Amos and I have pointed out, the term (sec^2) is only a shorthand notation, to be used and read as per sec/per sec. Example: As meant, used and evaluated: (we'll use meters here) X meters/per sec/per sec understood as "meters per second each second" How much shorter to use the notation meters/sec^2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Sep 04 - 02:47 PM No, it's the "simple evaluation" that's the common uninformed mistake. The presence of a "squared" term doesn't necessarily mean that you have to multiply by both factors in the term. The VELOCITY has units of ft/second. The VELOCITY increases at the rate of 32 (Ft/Sec)PER SECOND After 10 seconds, the VELOCITY has been increasing for 10 seconds, at the rate of 32 Ft/Sec^2 during EACH OF THE TEN SECONDS, so the first "seconds" factor in the "seconds^2" is PART OF THE RESULT, not part of the calculation, and the velocity is 320 Ft/SECOND. ONLY the SECOND SECONDS FACTOR is applied in the calculation, since THE FIRST SECONDS FACTOR is included in the "dimensions" of the answer. In your calculation: If calculated by squareing the seconds, the results are: after 1 sec velocity is 32*1^2 = 32ft/sec after 2 sec velocity is 32*2^2 = 128ft/sec after 3 sec velocity is 32*3^2 = 288ft/sec after 4 sec velocity is 32*4^2 = 512ft/sec You have an error in dimensions, since multiplying Ft/Sec^2 by Sec^2 MUST GIVE A RESULT WITH FEET AS IT'S ONLY DIMENSION, and the answer wanted has dimensions of FEET PER SECOND. Obviously an amateur mistake, but not one you should take personally, since it's common. You can't get an answer in "feet only" other than perhaps the distance fallen. Due to the constantly changing velocity, this requires an integration rather than a multiplication, with the result that the distance fallen after a time "t" is (g*t^2)/2. After falling for 4 seconds, the velocity would be 4*32 = 128 FEET PER SECOND, and the distance fallen would be 32*4*4/2 = 256 FEET. "Feet per Second Squared" is the CORRECT VALUE AND DIMENSION for the acceleration of gravity. Not science, but mathematical definition. As shown, you can get the wrong answer using the right information if you don't really understand simple mechanics and/or math; and sometimes you can even get the right answer using the wrong information, if you include a suitible compensating error. A technique, by the way, commonly used in engineering is finding an "error" - commonly called a "fudge factor" - that will account for the unknown errors in input data. It can be quite effective, and properly done can be quite reliable. One can even interpret the "g" constant as "the fudge factor required to make velocity equal to the integral of acceleration over a time interval when the acceleration is due to local gravity." John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST Date: 26 Sep 04 - 03:22 PM Wolfgang: "Canada lies north of the USA", generally true, but Alaska is further North than most of Canada, and Maine (as a State) is further North than an equivalent area of Canada. So clearly "Canada lies north of the USA", is not science either |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 04:34 PM I think we bow before the god of science because when science presents information it tends to do so with lots of evidence gathered from thought, experimentation and conclusion. (I am aware of the scientific process, so please don't get all pedantic about terminology.) Objects fall at a rate of 32' per second, and that rate increases until the object reaches terminal velocity. Of course, it's wrong. And observation will tell us that despite what the formula says. One just has to think about it. To demonstrate that, I just stood on a table and dropped a round metal object from as high as I could hold it. It went maybe 16', not 32'. So, so much for blind trust in formulas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 26 Sep 04 - 04:48 PM That's silleeeee, brucie. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 04:48 PM You dolt! I know the floor stopped it, but it would't have gone 32' in the first second even if it had the room to keep going. So, there is a triumph of 'that don't sound right' over a scientific formula. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 04:49 PM The "you dolt" was not addressed to you, Amos. We cross posted. Silly as it sounds, try it and let me know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 26 Sep 04 - 04:50 PM Matter of degree, Guest. There's always a degree of rounding off, and giving up. Or else science would have to test each result eternally, and in perfectly identical and somehow simultaneous cases, to test the principle of cause and effect, and generalizations about same kinds and properties of things. If science implied perfect knowledge of anything, or complete definition, then it would quit changing its story like an earnest liar and/or an enthusiastic businessman. It implies its particular standards of rigour. I think empirical observation is also science, without constructing any tests toward any results. Some people choose a different definition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 05:13 PM Hi, all. Just to back up my gut feeling that the formula 'don't make sense', I found a site that will bring things into perspective. The following is a cut and paste. For those who are not mathematically-inclined, there is a web page noted below that provides a picture. BM "The distance which a free-falling object has fallen from a position of rest is also dependent upon the time of fall. This distance can be computed by use of a formula; the distance fallen after a time of t seconds is given by the formula. d = 0.5 * g * t2 where g is the acceleration of gravity (approximately 10 m/s/s on Earth). Example calculations for the distance fallen by a free-falling object after one and two seconds are shown below. Example Calculations: At t = 1 s d = (0.5) * (10 m/s2) * (1 s)2 = 5 m At t = 2 s d = (0.5) * (10 m/s2) * (2 s)2 = 20 m At t = 5 s d = (0.5) * (10 m/s2) * (5 s)2 = 125 m The diagram below (not drawn to scale) shows the results of several distance calculations for a free-falling object dropped from a position of rest. You can see this diagram at the following web site: www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/ gbssci/phys/Class/1DKin/U1L5d.html or google: How Fast? and How Far? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 05:16 PM The lesson is, just because it is generally accepted as a 'scientific fact' don't mean it's right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:17 PM John, we've said it twice. I still think they are not listening. My only other suggestion would be to look at some dimensional analysis -- really a simple concept -- which just converts units, starting with any given quantity (number and units). All the examples above are correct, BUT the statement that the formula 'just don't make sense' is not the formula's fault - just the user's not understanding the formula. Which is what happens a lot when we are all talking different languages...and mathematics is the purest, most unambiguous language of all. (If this argument continues, I'll find my favorite example of right brain problem solving -- very hard for verbal, linear thinkers to solve.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:24 PM So, from being at rest, how far does an object fall during the first second? The answer is not 32', because that don't make sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:25 PM (Yes, it's in a vacuum where there is NO resistance and shape doesn't matter, and it's at sea level on Earth and all that stuff.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:33 PM It does not have a CONSTANT VELOCITY in that first time interval. Yes, it does not fall 32'. The INSTANTANEOUS VELOCITY at the point (one second) is 32 ft/sec. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:36 PM I think I saw on your link another formula for distance. Something like d = 0.5 * g * t^2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:41 PM So, it doesn't fall 32'. What distance does it fall? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:43 PM 16' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:44 PM Thank you. I feel better now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:48 PM I do too. For awhile there I thought gravity had been disproved! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:51 PM They got you believing that one too, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:55 PM Yeah, but remember, this is Kentucky. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 06:57 PM This reminds me of the following: Two teachers were asked how they would determine the height of a telephone pole. The math teacher said, "Use ration and proportion. Stand in the sun and measure your shadow. Now, Measure your height. Make that a fraction. Now, measure the length of the shadow of the telephone pole and that will allow you to determine the fourth property which will be the height of the pole." The English teacher said, "Cut down the pole and measure it." The (insert teacher of your choice here) teacher said, "Right. The math teacher gives me the height and the English teacher gives me the length." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 26 Sep 04 - 07:03 PM LOL. I had a class of "busy" Freshman once, and when we had those problems in trigonometry, one industrious fella started climbing out the window to "apply" what we were discussing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Joe_F Date: 26 Sep 04 - 07:33 PM Q. How would you measure the height of a building, using a barometer? A. Drop the barometer off the roof. The number of seconds before it crashes on the sidewalk, squared, and multiplied by 16, gives the height of the building in feet. Q. What hypothesis best explains the fact that the epicenters of earthquakes are usually found at depths not exceeding 20 km? A. The diameter of the earth is 40 km. Q. If you had landed on Mars and observed a suspicious object, how would you determine whether it was alive? A. Ask "Are you alive?" Even a negative answer should be regarded critically. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 07:43 PM "The diameter of the earth is 40 km" Typo, right? Math and experience and language. Using math, we can prove that one can't get anywhere, ever. To get somewhere, we first must go half the distance. Then we have to go half the remaining distance, then half the remaining distance, etc. So, we can never get where we want to go. If you have ever walked into a wall, you know the above to be 'untrue'. However, both math and experience are correct in this case. But they don't 'set out' to do the same thing, so we are answering two different 'questions' at the same time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Sep 04 - 08:00 PM 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952 0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151 5574857242 4541506959 5082953311 6861727855 8890750983 8175463746 4939319255 0604009277 0167113900 9848824012 8583616035 6370766010 4710181942 9555961989 4676783744 9448255379 7747268471 0404753464 6208046684 2590694912 9331367702 8989152104 7521620569 6602405803 8150193511 2533824300 3558764024 7496473263 9141992726 0426992279 6782354781 6360093417 2164121992 4586315030 2861829745 5570674983 8505494588 5869269956 9092721079 7509302955 3211653449 8720275596 0236480665 4991198818 3479775356 6369807426 5425278625 5181841757 4672890977 7727938000 8164706001 6145249192 1732172147 7235014144 1973568548 1613611573 5255213347 5741849468 4385233239 0739414333 4547762416 8625189835 6948556209 9219222184 2725502542 5688767179 0494601653 4668049886 2723279178 6085784383 8279679766 8145410095 3883786360 9506800642 2512520511 7392984896 0841284886 2694560424 1965285022 2106611863 0674427862 2039194945 0471237137 8696095636 4371917287 4677646575 7396241389 0865832645 9958133904 7802759009 9465764078 9512694683 9835259570 9825822620 5224894077 2671947826 8482601476 9909026401 3639443745 5305068203 4962524517 4939965143 1429809190 6592509372 2169646151 5709858387 4105978859 5977297549 8930161753 9284681382 6868386894 2774155991 8559252459 5395943104 9972524680 8459872736 4469584865 3836736222 6260991246 0805124388 4390451244 1365497627 8079771569 1435997700 1296160894 4169486855 5848406353 4220722258 2848864815 8456028506 0168427394 5226746767 8895252138 5225499546 6672782398 6456596116 3548862305 7745649803 5593634568 1743241125 1507606947 9451096596 0940252288 7971089314 5669136867 2287489405 6010150330 8617928680 9208747609 1782493858 9009714909 6759852613 6554978189 3129784821 6829989487 2265880485 7564014270 4775551323 7964145152 3746234364 5428584447 9526586782 1051141354 7357395231 1342716610 2135969536 2314429524 8493718711 0145765403 5902799344 0374200731 0578539062 1983874478 0847848968 3321445713 8687519435 0643021845 3191048481 0053706146 8067491927 8191197939 9520614196 6342875444 0643745123 7181921799 9839101591 9561814675 1426912397 4894090718 6494231961 5679452080 9514655022 5231603881 9301420937 6213785595 6638937787 0830390697 9207734672 2182562599 6615014215 0306803844 7734549202 6054146659 2520149744 2850732518 6660021324 3408819071 0486331734 6496514539 0579626856 1005508106 6587969981 6357473638 4052571459 1028970641 4011097120 6280439039 7595156771 5770042033 7869936007 2305587631 7635942187 3125147120 5329281918 2618612586 7321579198 4148488291 6447060957 5270695722 0917567116 7229109816 9091528017 3506712748 5832228718 3520935396 5725121083 5791513698 8209144421 0067510334 6711031412 6711136990 8658516398 3150197016 5151168517 1437657618 3515565088 4909989859 9823873455 2833163550 7647918535 8932261854 8963213293 3089857064 2046752590 7091548141 6549859461 6371802709 8199430992 4488957571 2828905923 2332609729 9712084433 5732654893 8239119325 9746366730 5836041428 1388303203 8249037589 8524374417 0291327656 1809377344 4030707469 2112019130 2033038019 7621101100 4492932151 6084244485 9637669838 9522868478 3123552658 2131449576 8572624334 4189303968 6426243410 7732269780 2807318915 4411010446 8232527162 0105265227 2111660396 6655730925 4711055785 3763466820 6531098965 2691862056 4769312570 5863566201 8558100729 3606598764 861179104(?) And the next number in the value of Pi is????? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 08:05 PM 3 Next time give us a hard one, Pat. Jaysus. (And I have a 10% chance of being right.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 04 - 08:06 PM Pi yesterday, and pi tomorrow, but never pi today. You sure fu#ked that up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 26 Sep 04 - 08:17 PM no, brucie...it's 5...followed by 3348850346 1136576867 5324944166 8039626579 7877185560 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 26 Sep 04 - 08:19 PM go here enter 861179104 in 'find in page' search... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Sep 04 - 08:33 PM Ha! I note that a few of our inveterate skeptics have finally shown up, and the sheer vitriole of their personal attacks on me for launching what is clearly a whimsical, although satirical, thread indicates that I am quite correct: they DO have an emotional need for all that "unscientific" stuff they don't believe in. Yes, they need someone to despise and look down on so they can feel superior. Well, here I am! Spit upon me and revile me. Enjoy your delusions of academic grandeur while you still can, you self-important, pedantic, bean-counters...you are all getting older, and the days go by ever faster. Soon you and your opinions will be dust in terms of this material world you place so much reliance upon. And Ohh-Ahh...YES, doctors ARE attracted to illness because they need it in their lives! Ever so much. They'd be out of a highly paying job without it. It's a damned shame they are NOT equally attracted to teaching the public more preventive medicine...or a lot fewer people would be getting ill in the first place in modern society. Doctors have become the servants (willing or unwilling) of pharmaceutical companies and high-tech medical industries, and it will be seen as quite a scandal at some point in the future (as the era of the medical "leeches" is now seen in retrospect). Doctors are presently causing a great deal of illness as well as treating it...and that's good for business if you are in the business of manufacturing drugs. Meanwhile, the cheery and amusing contributions from those of us who really don't take you all that seriously will continue to roll in and brighten up this most enjoyable thread. And, believe me, if I really wanted to provide an airtight scientific definition of something in print for this forum...I would...I'd just look it up in one of those bloody boring count-the-angels-on-the-head-of-the-pin science books or encyclopedias from which you chaps regurgitate every single thing you think you know all about. A parrot does the very same thing when it says, "Polly wants a cracker!" This does not prove that the parrot is intelligent, but it does prove he has a good memory and a big mouth, and he knows how to use both of them. As for the "dickheads" in this town...they are NOT people who have any interest in New Age stuff...or in ANYTHING unconventional. No indeed. I'll tell you what the local dickheads are interested in, Ohh...Ahh. They are interested in beer, hockey, football, SUV's, casual sex, Reality TV, and junk food. Not one of them would give a second of his time to anything New Age or spiritual, I can assure you...nor would he be interested in Wolfgang's science stuff either. If it isn't featured in the 6 O'Clock News or the pages of Penthouse, it doesn't exist for the local dickhead. That includes both New Age AND scientific subjects. Ohh-Ahh, I don't take you seriously. I never have taken you seriously, and I think that is what really bothers you. Given your general attitude, why would I take you seriously? You have nothing but derision and contempt for anything that you are not already committed to and totally familiar with. I have a great deal of respect for science, having begun this life as a very scientifically-minded atheist in an atheistic family. I now respect both science and spirituality, and I am curious about new information from either field. You don't show an iota of respect for anyone who is different from you. Why would you expect the people you deliberately insult and ridicule to take you seriously? You act like a jerk. You think I started this thread to make fun of you? You're right. You deserve to be made fun of for your pissy attitude toward other people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 26 Sep 04 - 09:02 PM Little Hawk, it's not you that people are questioning/criticizing. It's the imprecise (often incorrect) language you use to express your ideas. I often agree with your ideas, but the outrageous mistakes in language, logic, even facts are just too hard for me to ignore. When Wolfgang points these out, it's often just an objective (nothing personal or subjective) statement of fact. And his command of language (even the English language) is better than mine! As I stated in a PM to Brucie, a student (or any of us) cannot really learn anything unless we have an open mind and are willing to agree on the words we use to communicate. (oh dear, I'm sounding like Amos with the "C" word) As far as this being a whimsical thread -- some of the best threads at Mudcat are witty, whimsical, sarcastic, etc. But the humor is best when the participants understand the topic they are commenting on. We all know many lyrics and can throw out some pretty funny remarks using lyrics or anything in music. One of the funniest statements was by dmcg talking about "absolutely" from a mathematical standpoint -- but it was lost on most folks here. Also, Micca can get a few zingers in on chemistry. John Hardly was hilarious with his pottery (not potty) talk. And I love it when various "locals" (from anywhere in the world) start in with their particular slang. A long time ago we had a thread using various physics puns. Maybe I can find that one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Sep 04 - 09:24 PM Wolfgang is a very smart fellow, Mary, and I fully respect his abilities with logic and reasoning. I often use words in an unconventional way in order to stimulate philosophical thoughts which might lead to a new way of looking at something. For instance, I believe all people are "religious"...but when I say that I do not for a moment mean that they all believe in God...or that they all belong to some organized religion. What I mean is that they all believe in something abstract, and they form their viewpoints around those abstract concepts. They all have faith in something that exists inside their own heads...an idea of some kind...a philosophy...a sense of identity...a sense of purpose...one that may seem quite unreal to another person. I call that being "religious", because it involves great faith and great committment and it's not provable in concrete terms. I realize it's an unconventional use of the term, but I am doing that in order to stimulate some actual thinking rather than the mere repetition of rote knowledge. Anyone can look up facts in a book and memorize them perfectly and repeat them to someone else, but who can grasp the meaning of his own existence? Who can understand why he thinks the way he does, and how he could change it. Only a wise person can do that. Here's an old proverb: Great mind discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. (or facts) Small minds discuss others. (gossip) My unconventional use of the word "religion" when discussing people's core beliefs is done in order to get people to look at their habitual own thinking processes. If they do, they may be intrigued at what they find. Look outside, and you merely count the beans. Look inside, and you can find out why you want to count the beans in the first place! The latter is a far more important matter than knowing how many beans there are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 26 Sep 04 - 09:56 PM I agree...but (you knew there would be a but)... Besides my not being able to ignore mistakes in thoughts, language, punctuation, whatever...I feel like sometimes you are criticizing me, (because I'm well-steeped in science) when actually you just misunderstand what I'm saying. And you do have a way of speaking in an unconventional way. I don't think it's fair to expect people to understand your words when they are not always precise. It's possible to express your ideas with precision and clarity, where we can all agree or disagree, but at least be on the same page discussing the same thing. ***thread drift*** My dad was in a terrible accident and in intensive care for 5 weeks. We didn't know it at the time, but he was having mild seizures. As he tried to communicate with people, he became extremely frustrated when they didn't understand him. Once he asked for a "duck," and when all the nurses rolled their eyes thinking he was out of his head, he became very frustrated. As family members we knew his propensity for unusual ways of expressing his ideas, and we knew he wanted a drink of water. He also spoke of horses and nightmares which none of us understood until later. My point -- no one person can completely read another person's mind and understand what they mean. (Even though my husband thinks I should be able to "know" he means left when he says right, etc.) Precise language is the best we have for communicating. And as I've said before math is the best language. Science uses math a lot to express ideas. Scientists are not the "bean counters" you describe. (lets pick on accountants or managers or anybody not like me) ;-) In our problem about velocity and acceleration above -- calculus gave us a way to talk about the change of a change. (acceleration is changing velocity, and John pointed out that an integration yields the distance formula) We can frustrate each other for days trying to use words to express this, but a mathematical expression is clear, and really isn't that hard to understand. ****** It's late here. I have to stay a chapter ahead of the math student I'm tutoring tomorrow. 'nite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Sep 04 - 10:21 PM The best among scientists are far better than bean-counters, all right. They are people in search of knowledge and truth and understanding. That's good. The people who customarily attack and ridicule other people for talking about matters of interest that lie outside their conventional comfort zone, however, are the people I'm objecting to and lampooning in this thread...because their attacks are based on negative emotion and extreme prejudice, and some need to protect their own idea of "reality", and are not prompted by the search for truth or understanding. They reject things out of hand that other people have experienced directly, merely because they think they are so smart and well-informed that the other person simply couldn't possibly know anything useful about something that they have already decided is "impossible". That isn't the search for truth. It's the defence of ignorance, and the smug assumption of certainty. It's like the Pope saying: "Look, I'm infallible, the Catholic Church knows all there is to know about this, and you're not even anyone important in the Catholic hierarchy, so I KNOW you're wrong. You don't know the Catholic jargon. You don't know the creeds. You've never been confirmed. In fact, you're a dickhead, an idiot, a Birkenstock-wearing, New Age, vegetarian numbskull space cadet who probably believes in leprechauns." That's the kind of attitude I and many other intelligent and reasonable people must put up with whenever we choose to discuss anything that "Ohh-Ahh" and a few other arrogant pricks on this forum don't already believe in...as if they had reality all sewn up in a handbag, and nothing more to say about it. Pfui. I return them the contempt they have chosen to inflict on others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 26 Sep 04 - 10:42 PM Math is NOT the best language. It's a profoundly sucky language. I speak as someone who has a learning disability that prevents me from being able to retain and/or work with numbers in my head. But I manage to communicate quite effectively with people who value the language of math over all others until they discover I can't think in their favorite language. And then I see a shutter coming down behind their eyes and I can see them mentally assessing my intelligence. And they they start talking to me like I'm stupid. I've had far too many humiliating and degrading expreiences with people who think anyone who isn't proficient in the language of math isn't intelligent. Because of people like that, I was in my 30s before I discovered that I'm not stupid. People like you, Mary, cause a lot of very intelligent people to believe they are stupid, just because you and those like you only recognise the language you're best at when you assess another's intelligence. That's just plain chauvinistic. Math may be the best language for YOU, Mary, but it's NOT the best language. The best language is the one that works best for each of us, and that means that what is the best language for one person is not necessarily the best for another. I have no interest in or need to express myself using the language of math. But I do have an interest in expressing myself using the kinds of languages I'm good at. And the people who also are good at the kinds of languages I'm good at understand me well enough. People really need to lose these kinds of value judgements about how others learn and express themselves. Now I'm just plain pissed off. You math chauvinists really need to get over yourselves. I understand Little Hawk perfectly well. I LIKE the shades of meaning, the nuance, and the multiple layers in the things he writes. If you don't get them, that doest't mean he's not doing a good job of communicating. It just means that YOU"RE not proficient at understanding the way of communicating that he's exceptionally good at. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 26 Sep 04 - 10:43 PM Just try and tell someone you love them using the language of math and see how far it gets you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Sep 04 - 10:56 PM Heh! It could get you as far as the door... :-) Math is interesting when you investigate it from the point of view of spiritual philosophy. Very interesting. Most mathematicians' eyes glaze over at the very thought of doing that...they'd rather work out the answer to a formula than investigate the larger mysteries of Life. It's so nice having a neat, unvarying answer for everything. It's safe. You're in control. I knew a guy who was a fabulous chess player, cos he had a very mathematical mind. He was a complete putz when it came to personal relationships (ask his ex-girlfriend), but by God he could play chess! He checkmated me at least 50 times. I still like being me better than being him, given the choice. He already figured he knew everything too. Ask his ex-girlfriend about that. Ask her what it was worth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Cruiser Date: 26 Sep 04 - 11:12 PM CarolC: I have never met one human that was proficient in all aspects of human knowledge. A poem from the Internet using the language of math to express love (although somewhat abstract): Come, let us hasten to a higher plane, Where dyads tred the fairy fields of Venn, Their indices bedecked from one to _n_, Commingled in an endless Markov chain! Come, every frustrum longs to be a cone, And every vector dreams of matrices. Hark to the gentle gradient of the breeze It whispers of a more ergodic zone. In Riemann, Hilbert or in Banach space Let superscripts and subscripts go their ways. Our asymptotes no longer out of phase, We shall encounter, counting, face to face. I'll grant thee random access to my heart, Thou'lt tell me all the constants of thy love; And so we two shall all love's lemmas prove, And in our bound partition never part. For what did Cauchy know, or Christoffel, Or Fourier, or any Boole or Euler, Wielding their compasses, their pens and rulers, Of thy supernal sinusoidal spell? Cancel me not--for what then shall remain? Abscissas, some mantissas, modules, modes, A root or two, a torus and a node: The inverse of my verse, a null domain. Ellipse of bliss, converge, O lips divine! The product of our scalars is defined! Cyberiad draws nigh, and the skew mind Cuts capers like a happy haversine. I see the eigenvalue in thine eye, I hear the tender tensor in thy sigh. Bernoulli would have been content to die, Had he known such a^2 cos(2 \phi) ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah Date: 26 Sep 04 - 11:49 PM Hello fluffy bunnies! No I'm not in a closet, I'm in Australia, where the times of the day are a bit different. And I do know quite a bit about ley-lines, I have read the seminal work, Alfred Watkins' The Old Straight Track', which I bought in Pushkar, India - how's that for fluffy street-cred? I grew out of it when I was about 18 (hint, hint). When I used docters as an example to counter Little Hawk's shaky logic I had forgotten that he has a bee in his bonnet about alternative medicine, and thus was able to adroitly fudge the point of logic which (I sincerely hope) he understood full well. Carol C showed the same kind of intellectual dishonesty to win a cheap point: to claim as she does, that docters 'need' illness is like saying that teachers like myself 'need' ignorance; a positve vocation to help others is turned into a negative preying on their weaknes. However the real problem with Carol Cs statement is that doctors are certainly not ATTRACTED to illness itself (I say, that's a lovely case of scrofula you have Mr Smith!), as Little Hawk claims scoffers are attracted to the New Age. Perhaps I should have said that scoffers are attracted TO the New Age, not BY the New Ageis: as ambulances are attracted to a car crash, or priests to an excorcism. We want to HELP you guys, and stop you harming others with your loony ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Sep 04 - 11:51 PM "Q. How would you measure the height of a building, using a barometer?" The best answer I have seen to this is to find the caretaker, and say "I will give you this expensive instrument if you will show me the plans of the building so I can find the exact height". This is allegedly the answer give by someone brillant in his entry exam... he was accepted... ~~~~~~~~~ "There is no such thing as a squared second, in the real world, obviously." It's the way Maths is done. You don't have to believe it if you are not a Mathematican, any more than you have to believe in Christ if you are not a Christian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Teresa Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:06 AM I don't see a war between science and spirituality. I see a gulf between open-minded and closed-minded people, whatever their disciplines might be. If you are the kind of person that sees wonder in the world, then it can be seen in numbers, in music, and in the color of sunsets, etc. If you are the kind of person who has a fixed view of the universe and you don't want it challenged, then you will fight tooth and nail to maintain that view. T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:28 AM Ooh-Ahh, you certainly are the one who is fixated on the airy fairy New Age stuff (along with Pied Piper). I've never read any of the stuff you're talking about. You can read stuff written by scientists who are charlatans as well. That doesn't make all scientists charlatans. On the subject of the doctor thing, many doctors are attracted to the subject of illness. And it's a damn good thing they are. Otherwise, aside from the financial remuneration (which is not always top notch), there wouldn't be much incentive for people to go into that field. It's terribly hard work, and you have to do a lot of very unpleasant things. If people weren't attracted to that subject, there would probably be far fewer doctors than there are now. And there are barely enough to go around as it is. I was being humourous when I said what I did about doctors in my previous post, but it's also true from a logical standpoint. If there were no need for doctors, there would be no doctors. That's just logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Ooh Aah Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:40 AM I thoroughly agree with you. One thing that really annoys me about the New Agers is that they seem incapable of spiritually enjoying the incredible wonder of the real world - like the sunsets you mentioned -and are constantly trying to 'gild the lily'.It's not enough for them that a bird can find its young amid ten thousand others, or to wonder at the incredible symbiosis of animal and plant life, each exhaling gases the other needs to live - it is not enough for them that a crystal is a beautiful object created by unimaginable ages and pressures, it has to have completely unproven occult powers ascribed to it. Ironically it's another manifestaion of the spirit of very 'old age' religions like Christianity, who are less interested in this world than an idealised heaven. Both seem to think that the world we have isn't quite good enough somehow, and supply either another 'better' one to come, or uneccessary fictional additions! Significantly New Agers have the same emotional tie to their path as members of religions, and both sqeal like a stuck pig when challenged by sceptics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:42 AM As one who has done a little computer programming, when much younger I believed that a computer programming language might be the best way to communicate between humans - simple no obfuscations, etc - Rubbish! At one stage several of us in the Uni Computer Club started a competition to see how many languages we could acquire - we all gave up when I showed that I had a reading ability level in over 30 and that was almost one for every letter of the alphabet. I now see computing languages as in families of different types of languages, each family better better suited to certain families of problems, and each language in each family being more suited to different subclasses of such problems... Further more, the design of each language constrains the easiness of how one tackles various types of problems, the solutions being constrained to an extent by the individual language. I've still got somewhere the printout for Colossal Cave in Fortran... Went on to do some theatre study after that.... :-) The same applies with maths. Like CarolC I was put down for most of my life as stupid because of my Micro Motor Disorder - poor handwriting etc - at 40 I was tested as being intellectually in the extreme top group, even taking into account the test showing up severe deficiencies in certain types of thinking capabilities. I always had hassles with Calculus (not theoretically, but in remembering theorems and generating proofs) but had no hassles with 'Spherical Geometry', and indeed I used to play with friends various versions of multidimensional checkers, etc. Indeed, as the tester said in her report, my problems arose more from others being not smart enough to keep up with me than what had been previously assumed. My high school teacher had showed us quantum theory and the related structures of atoms (in a very simplified form according to the curriculum) and asked me if I understood Quantum Theory. I of course said "Yes" - at which point he put me down in a very nasty way. When I reached Uni - the stuff was of course much harder... and not made easier that even the scientists could not agree on all the details of some of the stuff... I was eventually forced out of study due to not being able to handle the Calculus through the way they wanted to test me - relying on me needing to use memory to recall hundreds of tiny conversion tricks - my memory works on a relational recall basis rather than being able to recall a list of facts. If I had the reference list alongside me, I could handle it well enough, but that was considered to be 'cheating', so it was not allowed. My problem has always been hassles with the 'lower level' stuff, but an apparent ease to handle higher level stuff, which has never upset the top people I have had contact with as they seem to understand, but has always cause hassles with the far more prevalent 'second raters'... We are all potentially different. No one 'Way' is right for all humans - I now also believe that too as far as Religion goes. But those who take refuge in their narrow mindedness will always be wanting to start wars to 'convert or kill' those not afflicted with their narrow mindedness and lack of wider experience. Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Ooh_Aah Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:47 AM Whoops! I agree with Teresa, not Carol C! Got to go now - I'l deal with Madam Carol at leisure later - tremble! Tremble! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:48 AM Ooh-Ahh, you keep ragging on "the New Agers". That's nothing more than a catch-all category and stereotype that has no meaning. You know only what you've read in books that were written by obvious charlatans and you paint everyone whose spiritual beliefs don't fall into any known organized religions with the same broad brush as them. That's just as much illogical bullshit as the stuff you find in those whacky books you read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 27 Sep 04 - 01:01 AM Correction. I missed the part where you castigated all religions and painted them all with the same broad brush. If I enjoy my life more by having the kinds of experiences I have, and I don't use my way of enjoying life in order to exploit anyone or anything, and if I respect all other people's way of living their lives and harm no one in the course of enjoying my life, what the hell business is it of yours? In the psychological world there are disorders that are characterized by the need to correct everyone else and make them conform to your way of doing and seeing things. Obsessive-compulsive people often have these characteristics. Maybe you're the one who needs a doctor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Ooh Aah Date: 27 Sep 04 - 01:16 AM Carol C, you need to tell the many people I know who call themselves 'New Agers' or as 'being interested in the New Age' that they are a catch-all category and meaningless stereotype! Plus the publishers who print their books, and the poor shelves of New Age book departments groaning under their load of rubbish. I'm glad you made the point about 'books written by obvious charlatans' because that cuts right to the heart of this issue. How do you KNOW they're charlatans or not without some kind of system which tests and compares their claims to reality? Ergo, science, or empirical observation, or scepticism, or whatever you wish to call it. If you beleive in something, (Eg. God) and you can't prove it, call it faith and there is no problem (as long as you don't murder/declare holy war/bore the shit out of other people with it). If you believe in something and and you can't prove it but claim that it is real and observable, be prepared for requests for proof, and scepticism if you can't provide it. As for known organised religions I am a passionate member of a notable known unorganised religion - Paganism! And another thing - you are still twisting my words. This time you said that Docters are attracted to the SUBJECT of illness. I repeat, I said that Docters are NOT attracted to illness itself. (Bone cancer! My favourite! How are you darling - spreading nicely?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: DMcG Date: 27 Sep 04 - 03:35 AM CarolC said: Just try and tell someone you love them using the language of math and see how far it gets you. True story from when I was VERY much younger than today. I was out for a drive with some friends and was in the back of the car with a girl who after a while asked why, when the car turned in one direction she fell over me, but in the opposite direction I never fell over her? Well, as I say, I was very young and innocent and there is no way I could excuse my behaviour on that day now but then I did the thing that seemed most natural ... I gave her a lecture on the equations of motion in a circle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: freda underhill Date: 27 Sep 04 - 04:36 AM Ooh - Aah - go check out the Scepticaemia thread - it was made just for you! (ps bunnies are an imported noxious breed in australia, good for shooting!) best wishes freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Cod Fiddler Date: 27 Sep 04 - 05:07 AM One does not equal two, even for very large values of one. Did you know that herring communicate by farting? (a fact for S6K) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: JulieF Date: 27 Sep 04 - 05:34 AM Its not the facts that are important as the 'facts' about how the world works should always be up for review. It is the process of how we deal with the evidence that is important. Sciensts are not immune from outside influences. When Newton was working on his laws he was actually looking for a mechanistic model to remove god from being in everything ( can't remember who was promoting this at the time but there was a big debate) and put him back as the controling influence. That given it was still the best approximation of how things worked for a few hundred years. Talking about the process of understanding. When my daughter was five she first encountered the problem of being brought up by athiestic parents when home views clashed with school views. The thought process won through when she came home and declared that she now understood who Adam and Eve were. They were the first people to evolve. We all have to contantly re-evalue what is true and make our own best approximations. I don't really have a problem where people's views are quite different from my understandings but there are cases where I belive that they will cause damage to themselves and other people. The most irritating thing I have found over the years is where people say at I as an athiest (secular humanist) can not be a moral person without refernce to a 'higher power' All the best J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah Date: 27 Sep 04 - 05:56 AM Freda - I am in complete agreement with you about shooting those noxious pests bunnies - whether as intrusive pests, lying rodents like our current PM or the New Age fluffy type. Death to bunnnies! Now I'm off to check that other thread you mentioned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 27 Sep 04 - 07:30 AM Math isn't just numbers - it's ideas. Learning Theory teaches us that each person has a dominant learning style and best absorbs new material using this dominant style. But then a student should use familiar material to reinforce weaker syles. IMO this is important in order to be an open-minded thinker. ***Insert Teresa's post here*** I would not use math to tell my granddaughter I love her. Nor would I use words. PS: Foolestroupe, I may PM you later today or tomorrow. I'm curious about how to help an algebra student I'm tutoring. She can do equation solving, and understands the equation of a line...also has a very good visual ability...but cannot remember her multiplication facts...will get the wrong answer in an equation because she doesnt know 9 times 5. Some of the elementary teachers I work with mentioned some materials which teach these facts by using an associated story and lots of visual and rhyming clues. Is this what you were talking about when you mentioned memory tricks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:02 AM Oh, fer.... Here's some REAL science. Important science. Award-winning science. Gracious, can't leave you children alone for even a minute.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Pied Piper Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:30 AM I suppose I should say something as this thread is dedicated to me. It has achieved its not very ambitious aim, by being mostly banal. Well done, put a gold star in your exercise book. When the smokescreen clears the questions remain. PP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Sep 04 - 10:00 AM Oh my. So many disturbing misconceptions. Facts aren't science. Science is a method - often used to attack and discard current facts. If you believe that something is 100% verifiable, you've just left the realm of science. In science, nothing is beyond question. Every fact is provisional, and might become falsehood tomorrow. Science is not "western" or culturally elitist. Anyone is free to practice it. I know many brilliant scientists from non-western cultures. The rules are simple and non-exclusionary, but quite rigid. Many scientists feel that everything is open to question - even the dearly-held and sacred beliefs of the deeply religious or the New Agers. Often the holders of sacred beliefs take offense at this. It's not personal (and if it is, the scientist is being an A-hole, and there are as many A-hole scientists per cap. as there are A-hole New Agers). Wait a minute, just dropped a bit of vegetarian breakfast in my Birkenstock.... Okay, now where were we? Ah yes. Science is (IMHO) far far far from boring. I find it delightful to stand in a pitch dark cave with bats whizzing by - navigating a labryinth of cracks and tunnels that they "see" in their minds as clearly as we would if it were lit up like a stadium, or to see an eel in a freshwater stream and picture the incredible journey it may have just completed (and will undoubtedly attempt again), or to find the fresh nest of a turtle who was probably born at nearly this exact spot when Grandmother lived just over there as a little girl, or to look at a star and picture a hypothetical alien looking back at me from the third planet out who sees not me, but a dimetrydon. All of this magic with no magical thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,noddy Date: 27 Sep 04 - 10:06 AM You need skin to keep your insides in and he outside out. Black is not a colour it is the absence of colour. Sorry LH. White is ALL colours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,noddy Date: 27 Sep 04 - 10:07 AM why ask the question if you dont understand the answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Sep 04 - 10:47 AM Open Book Exams, I get damn near 100% - just having the 'Talisman' there, seems to act as a prompt - if really needed, I can often open the text book to the exact page to get the detailed answer.... "Is this what you were talking about when you mentioned memory tricks?" Those work for some people. I'm not sure I can be of any real help... God help you and her with multiplication tables... My brother learnt with 'the rods' and such toys need to be played with visually until the penny drops, just counting in things such as 7's or 9's will also help to remember basic multiplication tables - it shows that there is a practical reason to remember such things.... start off with 2's & 10's & work up 3's & 11's up to 9's etc... other useful ones are 25's, also 8's & 16's (for computing - also 32's & 64's these days!) Also squares tables, then show how they tie in to the previous ones... The sort of relational thing I meant is like remembering that William of Normandie's Telephone Number is Hastings 1066 - which no longer makes sense to people not used to manual telephone exchanges... The real sort of relational thing I use is: Christopher Columbus, sailed the ocean blue in.... er.. 1492, er 1642, er 1462? er... wait on, potatoes came across after the New World - anchor date 1600 (I was in the SCA!) after 1600! er - one of the others!... potatoes were commented on in the early 1500's by a priest saying disgustedly that potatoes were now so common that even the peasants were growing them and putting them in their stews.... so the later date seems unlikely, damn, it's been so long - I can't remember which date it was - fail! You did want to ask... and you wonder why I make lots of smart arse 'associative' comments here.... or why The Fooles Troupe is what it is.... I do not think in black and white, yes/no, but in multiplicities.... in webs... naturally - probably due to my compensation for the type of brain damage sustained at birth - a natural parallel/lateral thinker I can play a single game of chess at a reasonable level, but used to be able to play up to 20 simultaneous games at the same level... not much good at 'blind chess' though - I'm a very visually sighted person. IQ +5 SD on the Wasir... but can only score about 120 on the Mensa style tests (entry level 135) - because of the way they mungle things together in their tests - weird, but perfectly normal... so they said in Mensa! :-) Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 27 Sep 04 - 10:50 AM White is the sucking up, or absence, of black just as light is the absence, or sucking up, of dark. "Light" bulbs are simply darksuckers. "White" "color" is simply something that sucks up black. Dark and black are the colors of the Universe, just as ignorance is its prevading medium. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Pied Piper Date: 27 Sep 04 - 10:56 AM Absolutely Tia. As a child I collected Fosils, mostly round the Manchester area and have never lost the magical thrill of finding the remains of things that died in the deep past, yet could be held in the palm of my eager child's hand. PP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:18 AM How did this turn in to a thread about the intricacies of Robin's Egostructure? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:21 AM Lots of lovely contributions. Thank you. I have no problem with Paganism, Ohh-Ahh, and I am greatly impressed by the wonder of Nature, the beauty of sunsets, the fascinating intricacies of symbiosis, and so on. I agree that there are some very silly New Age people and books out there...also some very wise ones. You seem to only focus on the silly ones for some reason. Now let's get back to boring science that we all believe in... Zygote: a cell formed by the union of two gametes, e.g., the fertilized ovum. Fascinating if you're into that sort of thing. Boring if you're not. I'd rather read a good poem, given the choice. It would tell me more about life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,milk monitor Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:35 AM And after it rains There's a rainbow And all of the colors are black It's not that the colors aren't there It's just imagination they lack......... P.Simon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:35 AM And another thing - you are still twisting my words. This time you said that Docters are attracted to the SUBJECT of illness. I repeat, I said that Docters are NOT attracted to illness itself. (Bone cancer! My favourite! How are you darling - spreading nicely?) If you look back in the thread a bit, you'll see that it was you who were twisting my words. All I said was that without illnesses there would be no doctors. And you proceeded to attack me and my motivations for saying that. I stand by what I said. Without illnesses, there would be no doctors. You are making judgements about how others experience their reality when you accuse people who experience the energetic qualities of minerals as "gilding the lily". This is a value judgement about someone else's experience. It's just not any of your business. And if some people enjoy reading the books that are written on the subject of Ley Lines, as long as they don't force you to buy the books, it's not any of your business. Just as it's none of my business whether or not people enjoy reading romance novels (even though I can't stand the things), as long as they don't force me to buy them or read them. And if people enjoy discussing these kinds of things in threads, as long as nobody is forcing you to read them, there's no reason you should feel a need to set everyone straight about where they're going wrong. To do so is just arrogant boorishness. I won't quibble with you about the fact that there are many people who call themselves "New Agers", or that the term "New Age" is one that is used commercially to target certain people in order to sell certain kinds of products. However, it's a very big mistake to place everyone who may share some of the experiences or beliefs as the people who call themselves New Agers into the same category with them. I do experience energy as a physical sensation, but I do not consider myself a New Ager. BTW. there are some people who put Paganism into the same category as New Agers. These kinds of generalizations serve no one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Pied Piper Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:46 AM Bored by what brought you into existence. Oh the ennui of the spiritually enlightened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:56 AM I'm curious about how to help an algebra student I'm tutoring. She can do equation solving, and understands the equation of a line...also has a very good visual ability...but cannot remember her multiplication facts...will get the wrong answer in an equation because she doesnt know 9 times 5. She sounds a lot like me. You need to consider the possibility that she has the same learning disability as I have, and that it's possible that she will never be able to memorise the multiplication facts. There are calculators available now for people who have this problem. If she is like me, you will be doing her a much bigger service by recommending that she be tested for learning disabilities, and by letting her use a calculator or at the very least, a multiplication table for her multiplication facts. I have no problems with understanding the processes as long as I'm not being forced to put all of my mental energies into trying to remember something I'm not capable of remembering. Think of the calculator in the same way you would a pair of eyeglasses or a wheelchair. It's simply a device that frees her up to learn and not be forced to keep beating her head against a wall that will never go away. Perhaps a better analogy would be that the calculator is like a ladder that allows her to go over the wall instead of having to continually try to break it down using only her head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:01 PM Bored by what brought you into existence. Oh the ennui of the spiritually enlightened. How would you know, Pied Piper? Do you consider yourself one of the spiritually enlightened? Or are you just projecting your own ideas about what others experience onto them based on your own prejudices and preconceptions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:02 PM The true master knows That boredom, too, is Merely his creation for Entertainment. Silud Ang Pourohn, Burmese Temple Master 1059-1102 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Pied Piper Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:06 PM I was referring to LH boredom with the fertilized egg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Pied Piper Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:11 PM More meaningless Bollocks Grasshoper? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:17 PM It's not conception that bores me, Pied, it's the verbal style and vocabulary employed in the scientific description OF conception that bores me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:29 PM I can appreciate that scientific vocabulary may seem boring. However, a specific and universal vocabulary is necessary so that a scientist in Rangoon will know exactly, what another scientist in Calgary has done and observed. The wonder in science lies beyond the language - in what is being done and observed. If I tell you that Amorphophallus titanum has the world's largest spadix, you could simply be bored by the big scarey words. But, there's a lot of fun and wonder in understanding what the hell is being discussed. And, in this particular case, even the scarey words are fun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:46 PM It's just like that with Dylan lyrics too, TIA. :-) Very useful, great fun, and highly interesting if you're into it. Boring or even scary if you're not. For instance, the verse in "Ballad of a Thin Man" where he's talking about the "one-eyed midget"...what does that convey to you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:52 PM Aha! It conveys an "amorphophallus minutium" Capital example. Such a great example that I suspect you understand the scarey words far more than you let on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:58 PM Heh! Heh! Humour can always rescue us when we stray too far afield, eh, TIA? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 27 Sep 04 - 05:11 PM I believe it was Joe F who said: Q. What hypothesis best explains the fact that the epicenters of earthquakes are usually found at depths not exceeding 20 km? A. The diameter of the earth is 40 km. WRONG! The epicenter of an earthquake is not "at depths not exceeding 20 km". The epicenter of an earthquake, by definition is found at no depth at all, but on the SURFACE of the earth, above the center of the earthquake, which I suppose is at "a depth not exceeding 20 km." It's a good idea to look up technical terms before using them. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 27 Sep 04 - 05:56 PM That, Uncle DaveO, is the absolute ultimate penultimate! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Ooh -Aah Date: 27 Sep 04 - 06:24 PM (Wearily) Carol, what you say about what you said (Gawd!) is quite correct. But you forget that my initial comment was directed at Little Hawk's assertions about the motivations of 'scoffers', and actually was nothing to do with your later accretions at all. As for whether your bizarre and unlikely experiences with crystals are any of my business or not, it is clear that you have not been reading MY postings very accurately. Again: if it's an internal, subjective faith thing, fair enough - but if you are claiming objective effects, then be prepared to be asked for proof, or evidence. If not how do we know you are not simply making it up? And it's rather bizarre to write about these experiences in a public forum like this, and then complain that it's no-one else's business!! Liitle Hawk, please refer me to a New Age book which you consider rational/not bullshit. I've yet to see one - the only half-good ones pinch legitimate techniques from other cultures (meditation etc) and apply what I call 'the airbrushed unicorn effect'. I would like to agree strongly to Tia and others about the wonders of the natural world, and the comment that science is simply an instrument for understanding it, not an end in itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 27 Sep 04 - 06:44 PM I liked the definition of the whale. I think you're mistaken Mary In Ky, do you mind if I call you "Mary Here?" Wolfgangs comments really were rather pissy, in a typical sort of macho-science-guy way, and they were also imprecise, and illogical. Scientists can and do study "flowers, love, and happiness"--these are not an alternative sphere to science, but meant to make someone sound fruity or namby-pamby. I dont know what new age stuff is, but my doctor has prescribed stuff that said The mechanism of its action is not understood. Is that new age? How many ads say Ask your Doctor if something that isnt market-controlled is right for you? Are scientists studying why drugs quit working when the patent expires? My point is that science lives in the world of compromise with everything else, and shouldnt talk so high and mighty, the way many science guys like to. The ancient Greek paralax experiment that proved the earth doesnt move was valid science. But the Greeks couldnt imagine themselves so small in the universe. Gifted scientists have to imagine things, to even bother about testing them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Joe_F Date: 27 Sep 04 - 06:54 PM Uncle DaveO: You're right. What's more, I've forgotten the correct word. However, I still have my sophomore geology book, and it turns out to be "the *foci* of earthquakes". I see, also, that the exam question would be more accurate if I had had made it 30 km, and the wiseass answer 60 km. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:25 PM Well, Ohh-Ahh, there are any number of books I could suggest...but I frankly don't trust you to give them a fair reading, so I'm not sure I would bother. I think you are already so biased that you would pick over them with no other motivation than to find things to attack, misinterpret, quote out of context, and disagree with. (The above procedure is exactly what Republicans do with anything the Democrats say...and vice versa. It's called "being partisan", and it results in nothing worthwhile whatsoever. It adds to the mountain of pain in this World.) I don't trust you. You have shown no goodwill on this forum, as far as I can see, but only a desire to "win" arguments for the sake of bolstering your own ego. I think this renders you virtually incapable of genuine impartiality regarding anything "New Age". Of New Age books, you said: "the only half-good ones pinch legitimate techniques from other cultures (meditation etc) and apply what I call 'the airbrushed unicorn effect'." It strikes me as really quite odd that you would consider a treatise on life, healing or anything else to be spurious because it borrows techniques from various cultures and traditions! If those techniques are good ones, then they are part of the picture, and are worthy of being borrowed and used to the fullest. These are the things that unite us as human beings. All the great truths are essentially very simple, and can be found revealed in all the great spiritual teachings, as well as in science and practicality. example: It is true that any action results in an equal and opposite reaction. That is explained in physical and natural terms in Newtonian science, correct? Well, it's also a spiritual teaching. In spirituality it's called "karma" (in one great tradition), e.g., any spiritual action results in an equal and opposite spiritual reaction. This is so because spirit is a subtle form of energy, and energy movements result in equal and opposite reactions, just as physical actions do. Any spiritual or New Age book that is any good at all is BOUND to borrow heavily from past cultures and traditions, because the truth is there to be found in every culture, plain as the nose on your face. Why not point this out, and make use of it? That kind of thinking leads to Unity and brotherhood. Divisive and exclusionary thinking does not. I don't deny your science, I just question its implicit assumptions of superiority to other fields of inquiry. You deny my spirituality. But you know little or nothing about it. You are not in any position to deny it. And I repeat, I do not trust you. I think you have a desire to conquer, to win, and to hurt those you disagree with. I think you have ill will. Why would I want to dance with a partner who is hoping to step on my toes at the first opportunity? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:45 PM Because we might fall in l-o-o-o-ve. No, seriously, tell me a book! I'm 32 years old and have changed my position on many things in life -once a young redneck now a conservationist, once an atheist now a Pagan, once a republican now a constitutional monarchist - once I hated tomatoes, now I like them. Give me a chance Hawkikins! I would read it in a spirit of sceptical interest and feel obliged to be fair because I am an Englishman (IRONY). Again you have based an argument on an assertion (that the spirit is a form of energy) that many would not agree with. Proof please! I think the spirit is a convenient word for the nexus of an individual's, thoughts, memory, experiences, beliefs and so on. "Proof please!" you reply - but I do not base an argument on MY assertion. Your 'great truth' is thus a matter of subjective opinion. Furthermore this assertion, unlike mine, contains an empirical claim, that spirit is a form of energy. In this case we should be able to measure it. Do you see what I am getting at? As for the assertion that I am doing this for my own ego, you are quite right. I really enjoy this kind of argument - and am pleased that you are in it from an unselfish desire to bing others to The Light. However my motivation does not affect the relevance or otherwise of my arguments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:47 PM "It strikes me as really quite odd that you would consider a treatise on life, healing or anything else to be spurious because it borrows techniques from various cultures and traditions!" Further to that, we 'borrowed' numbers as we know them (deca system) from the middle East (and the alphabet, too); astronomy from the Italians who got it from the meddle East and the Egyptians; medicine from every country in the world--Ooh-Aah, who the hell do you think other cultures ARE. They are us for crissake. All of us are us. All. Do you have your world wrapped up in white hats and black hats? My gawd, read something other than what you do. You get anymore narrow minded and you'll be letting your brains flow through a straw. There won't be a friction coefficient. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:59 PM Ha! We both seem to be considering the possibilities of romance here...but no...I'm too old for you. (sigh) Besides, I'm fed up with romance. :-) Look, I am willing to recommend some books if you are willing to join this forum as a member, instead of logging in as a Guest. Proof? You want proof? How am I supposed to do that, when you're in Australia and I'm in Canada? Just read the darned books and form your own conclusions. The proof is in the actual living and testing out of spiritual concepts over a period of time, not in looking at something through a microscope or measuring it with a micrometer or viewing it on a radar screen. I find the story of your various past beliefs rather intriguing, to say the least. "Constitutional Monarchist"?? Unusual. Why would you, as a Pagan, be so strongly opposed to ideas about spirituality? Most pagans seem to believe in spirituality, given my past experience. We have no existing means of "measuring" spiritual energy that I know of...except for one. I'm not sure you would regard that one as valid, because it uses the human body, not a machine, to do the measuring. My guess is you would not accept it, no matter how many times it was demonstrated...or by whom...including yourself. But I'll tell you this...you can feel spiritual energy. That again, I think, would not serve to convince you of anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 27 Sep 04 - 09:13 PM Hi Fred! Sure you can call me Mary Here (just don't call me Mary in Louisville 'cause I still bleed blue...ouch) One of the things I do at Mudcat (when I have time, and when the music threads don't interest me) is to follow a thread, reading carefully to see the thought processes and especially the introduction of inflammatory off topic statements, often using the logical fallacies Bill pointed us to. (See Bill, I'm still studying 'em.) Troll threads can sometimes be interesting to see the escalation and/or introduction of "hot topic buzz words" and the responses it generates. I think some of the trolls purposely manipulate the conversation, carefully escalating it, but threads like this one are just...what was the word used above...banal. You think Wolfgang'g comments were pissy; I don't -- just fact. As I said above, a comment is whimsical and witty when the person understands the topic. Think of the Drumcree threads. I didn't understand the majority of the comments, but from what I did know, they were extremely witty. Unlike some comments here which are neither witty nor sarcastic, just Animal Farm-type chants. You perceive him in "a typical sort of macho-science-guy way." That's your perception...and I think it's a defensive reaction. Much like Carol jumping on me for her misconception of what kind of teacher she thinks I am. His statements were neither imprecise nor illogical...very clear and concise. I would not have said "flowers, love and happiness" because I know these are buzz words for fruity or namby-pamby. (even though I love flowers and gardening, think I experience love everyday, and have lived long enough to have opinions on happiness) In short, I agree with what he said, though I wouldn't have used the last phrase. Given the leading post of this thread, some people would say that it's only a fair response...but Wolfgang doesn't return mud for mud...like many here do. (Bill, what's the name for that -- justifying your actions because you are returning mudslinging?) Wolfgang doesn't need my defense, and I think it's definitely not appropriate to discuss him when he's not here. I'm merely talking to my friend, Fred. (I'll be at the St. James Art Fair Saturday.) Let's end with Teresa's post...then get back to some silliness...but please make it a little more witty, based on truisms and not misconceptions. I know Mudcatters will disagree about what color the sky is -- I know because I was once questioned on the difference between sky blue and powder blue here -- and having worked for a paint company, I do know a bit about commercial colors and pigments. Which reminds me, all the comments about mixing colors are from people that are somtimes talking about light and sometimes pigments. There can be witty statements made, but they are best when true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 27 Sep 04 - 09:39 PM Occupational Therapy. GUEST,Ooh-Aah, you by any chance in Melbourne? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 27 Sep 04 - 10:21 PM Much like Carol jumping on me for her misconception of what kind of teacher she thinks I am. I jumped on you for stating the value judgement laden phrase, "math is the best language". I was pretty emotional in my response, but I can assure you that what I was feeling when I posted that is pretty much what any student of yours will feel / has felt when you make a statement like that, if he or she experiences numbers in the way I do. When you say that, you are placing a greater value on the thing you are good at, and diminishing the value of the thing I am good at. You will probably never hear it explained as openly from one of your students as I just have, so you can use this as a valuable learning exprience if you want to. We don't need to have the things we are good at diminished. It's difficult enough to just deal with these kinds of learning difficulties without also having to deal with value judgements like that one. And just to show the fallacy of that value judgement, here is a list of some of the most important things in life that can't be communicated using the language of math: Compassion Empathy Love Sympathy Concern Nurturing Understanding You can't use the language of math to tell someone: You're proud of them. You are supportive of them. You value them. You can't use the language of math to express feelings and emotions. Or to communicate with others about their feelings. You can't use the language of math to understand people who have difficulty speaking. But you can use the language of compassion and of intuition to do that. The only "best language" is the one that most effectively communicates what needs to be communicated in any given situation, and yes, that includes the language of touch. Value what your students are good at. Make sure they know you value them and what they're good at just as highly as you value what you're good at, even if what they're good at isn't math. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 27 Sep 04 - 10:30 PM Well, you COULD, Carol, just to be fair about it. You could say things, I dunno, like for example: "Honey, when you made that ham steak wtih red-eye sauce my affinity for you increased by 37% over a period of 17 seconds, and stayed at no less than 93% of that level for the next 2 hours, fifteen minutes and 21 point 76 seconds!! Now if that ain't love, well, I dunno what is!!!" or, "Oh, Brad, when you handled that stranger so manfully, the tensor rigidity in my leg joints seemed to decline suddenly to about 60% of their normal load-bearing capacity!! You are SUCH a man!!" I dunno though...it might not be the same thing. Teenagers just don't describe their emotions in terms of the inverse square law any more , do they? Or did they ever??? :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 27 Sep 04 - 10:36 PM You could say it that way, Amos, but I think the chances that you would be understood and that the communication would have accomplished what it was meant to accomplish would be about 1%. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah Date: 27 Sep 04 - 10:55 PM I am extremely anxious to clear up a misconception Brucie has formed about me. I am NOT!! against taking things from other cultures (ridiculous). I am wary of when they are lifted without aknowledgement to the forming culture and out of context, and when a mass of them are crammed and welded together into a trendy system created for yuppies with too much money and too little time to have the courtesy to study the practise, and its culture, with the fullness it deserves. Systems which the ancient cultures of India or China developed over thousands of years are re-packaged as glossy consumer items, showing a spiritual equivalent of western imperialism - take out what you want and leave the rest. So Brucie, I am on your side on this - having visited India 10 times, including 6 months teaching Tibetan refugee children, means I should be! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:05 PM OK, sounds good to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: freda underhill Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:36 PM hey, ooh-aah, i think you are the spiritual version of a coconut. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:45 PM I never tell a student they can't do something. (And encourage them not to think it.) I don't like whiners, nor people who put others down, nor people who won't TRY. IQ, ability, or past performance has little to do with success in the math classroom. I listen. If a student has an open mind and is motivated, I can help him/her tremendously. I know how to set a student up for success and learn to face fears and inadequacies. I have high expectations of all students. I have NEVER belittled a student. I'm aware of cultural differences and can work with them. I have personal knowledge and experience with dyslexics. I've seen just about every kind of learning disability there is, and math anxiety is one of them. I've studied Learning Theory and the 100 and some odd ways to characterize IQ. (not measure) I can tease teenagers about "loving math" and "loving homework" and "getting the math award" and they understand. But it's kinda like my music teacher who tried to get me to appreciate Bach, it just didn't "take" until I was older. I taught ages 3-50 many different subjects...some were nuns, some were toddlers, some blue collar workers without a job, most were teenagers, even a few severely learning disabled who surprised all of us with the isolated things they could do. Some had parents telling them they would never understand math because they (the parents) never did. When given an algebra book instead of a general math book to carry, they were filled with pride. I saw it work. Suddenly students who couldn't get prepositions straight (when to use to and when to use from) were growing...and as one girl told me last week...she had never passed math before. I taught a girl who could barely read how to play the piano...all relationally...still not reading the notes...and her family gushed with pride. You are being defensive...that's not my fault. You don't like my use of the word best. That's OK. I'll say: I think math is superior to other forms of language because it explains ideas unequivocally that we are erroneously trapped into thinking because our particular language is limited and influences us in ways we are unaware of. (Thinking is limited by language. Just look at the various languages and language families.) Think of math as ideas and not numbers. Some ideas are so complex they can only be described with math. And math is not my major. (By the way, you can't use words to adequately express your list of words either -- that's a distraction.) Just try to keep an open mind and consider one more way of thinking -- it most certainly doesn't have to be your strength -- in many ways it's not my dominant thinking style either. And if you want to continue arguing, do it by PM, respond to ALL of what I'm saying. This is rambing, and certainly not in the spirit of the thread. Please PM me if you want to know more about math. I predict you won't. I answer PM's. Surprise me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: HuwG Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:49 PM Let's see how boring I can make science, using the "pint of sand and pint of marbles" problem. First thing to note, is that this is a mixture of silica (SiO4) particles, with one very large and one very small particle size. (If the marbles are coloured, there will be small amounts of impurities, but I'll ignore that for the moment. Next thing to note is the amount of void space between the particles. For the sand, this will be very small and difficult to determine exactly without very sensitive weighing apparatus, because the particle shapes will be irregular. Purely for the sake of this argument, I will pluck a figure out of mid-air and assume that the sand is 95% silica and 5% air. For the marbles however, I will assume that the "pint of marbles" is a pint container filled with marbles. The particles will be spherical in shape. There are several possibilities for the arrangement of the particles to get the greatest density. In a cubic arrangement, each marble will occupy the centre of a cubic space of (2r)³ [insert arbitrary measurement unit of choice], where r is the radius of the sphere. The volume of a sphere is 4/3 * ¶r³ (I hope that comes out as "pi"), provable by calculus and measurement. Therefore, a cubic arrangement of marbles is approximately 52% marble and 48% void. In a close-packed hexagonal arrangment, the arrangment is by tetrahedra of four marbles. The volume of a tetrahedron is The volume of a tetrahedron is one-third the distance from a vertex to the opposite face, times the area of that face. This works out as: (a³ * sqrt(2)) / 12. Since a = 2r (1 + sqrt (3)) in this instance, and this space contains (16 ¶ r³) / 3 marble by volume, we have [insert frantic calculator-bashing], an arrangement of 87% marble and 13% void. In both arrangments, I am ignoring the external shape of the container, which might make either arrangement impossible to achieve fully, and would therefore increase the void space. Having discarded all my experimental apparatus (i.e. lost my marbles) some time ago, I cannot determine the exact spacing by experiment. However, I will make the wild assumption that we will have an irregular arrangement of marbles in which the void space is midway between that achieved by the cubic and close-packed hexagonal arrangments i.e. 75% marble and 15% void. The sand can be assumed to fill the void space between the marbles (providing you add it to the marbles, rather than vice-versa). Therefore, the final result will be one and a quarter pints of silica, with a mixture of very big and very small bits. Stick this in a furnace long enough, and you will have a one and a quarter pint blob of glass. Alternately, shake it long enough (a millenium or so) and you will have one and a quarter pints of highly abrasive dust. There's no way "New Age" science could get so tedious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: HuwG Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:54 PM Aagh ! my bad work ! If there is 75% marble, the final result will be one and three-quarters pints of marble / sand mixture. Coffee ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Naemanson Date: 28 Sep 04 - 01:02 AM This was a fun thread until all the sniping got started. Where does the dark go when you turn on the light? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Sep 04 - 02:16 AM It runs away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:52 AM It hides in a hole that has been filled in with dirt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 28 Sep 04 - 08:05 AM Oh, my. So you think science can't deal with the "soft stuff", huh? Well, just check out Alteration of the platelet serotonin transporter in romantic love, bucko! Here's just a little hint at what's waiting for you: BACKGROUND: The evolutionary consequences of love are so important that there must be some long-established biological process regulating it. Recent findings suggest that the serotonin (5-HT) transporter might be linked to both neuroticism and sexual behaviour as well as to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The similarities between an overvalued idea, such as that typical of subjects in the early phase of a love relationship, and obsession, prompted us to explore the possibility that the two conditions might share alterations at the level of the 5-HT transporter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 28 Sep 04 - 08:30 AM And let's not forget the work of the British Standards people, who with BS 6008 ("Method for preparation of a liquor of tea for use in sensory tests") has given the world the definitive work on the subject. (And if you think I'm kidding about this, think again!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 28 Sep 04 - 08:45 AM Liquid seeks its own level. Friction decreases the speed of a motion. Absent the injection of order by thought, entropy will tend to increase in any system, eventually leading to dissipation of recognizable forms. Bodies at rest tend to remain at rest unless affected by some outside force. Bodies in motion tend to remain et cetera likewise. Maybe a definition of a straight line is that sequence of points through which a body in morion will travel if it is not-being affected by any outside force. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:19 AM Now now Mary, I dont generally characterize Wolfgang in the way I hear his one post above. It seems to me an exception. No one can match composer John Cage for boring writing. Could somebody give me a specific example of New Age? All I know is the ambient music I hear sometimes, people call new age. Is it like Tibetan monks drinking urine? Cherokee sweat houses? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Leadfingers Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:49 AM There ia something we can ALL learn , some of the time ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:27 AM This might be more to do with history and math than science (in the strictest sense of the word "science") - but this site from Dartmouth College has the kind of historical "science" I enjoy the most: Geometry in Art and Architecture: Number Symbolism in the Middle Ages Scroll down to the section on the symbolism of the number 5. The 5-pointed star has been used by a number of diverse cultures to symbolism human power for millenia. I find it very interesting that the nation with no less than 50 pentacles on it's flag is now the planet's most formidable super-power!! Would it be going too far out into left field to see this fact as "scientific validation" of the power of the symbol of the 5-pointed star??? Here's a quote from the article: The geometric symbols of five are, of course, the pentagram and pentagon. As with the Pythagoreans, the pentagram was a symbol of recognition for certain secret societies, such as the Freemasons Flaming Star, and was supposedly on shield of Sir Gawain, one of the Arthurian Grail Knights ... In medieval magic the pentagram was called the pentacle, and became a symbol for man, the microcosmos ... The star pentagram appears on many flags. According to Betsy Ross' daughter, Washington and some others came to her mother's upholstery shop in Philly in June of 1776 with a rough draft of a flag. It had 6-pointed stars. Betsy showed them how to make a 5-pointed star by folding a piece of paper and making one cut with the shears. Washington then changed the design. This story was later discredited. But it is interesting to note that George Washington studied engineering, geometry, trigonometry and surveying. His family crest contained stars and stripes, and some say that this may have influenced the flag design. Also, Washington was a Freemason. On a different note, I've been puzzling over what is termed the The Golden Ratio on that site. [NOTE: I don't have the font for Greek letters, so I'm using the letter O for the Greek letter "phi", which is an O with a line dividing it down the middle] Systems of Proportions Throughout much of art history, artists and architects were concerned with the proportions of the parts of their works. For example, if you were designing a temple, you might want to make the ratio of its height any old number, or perhaps, for some reason, a particular value. In fact, we'll see that there were not only particular ratios that were preferred, but sometimes entire systems of proportions. Some systems of proportions were based on: 1. The musical intervals 2. The Human Body 3. The Golden Ratio ... The golden ratio is also called extreme and mean ratio. According to Euclid, A straight line is said to have been cut in extreme and mean ratio when, as the whole line is to the greater segment, so is the greater to the less. Derivation of the Golden Ratio Let smaller part = 1, larger part = O Thus is the golden ratio. It is often designated by the greek letter phi, for Phideas, (fl. c. 490-430 BC), Athenian sculptor and artistic director of the construction of the Parthenon, who supposedly used the golden ratio in his work. Then by the definition of the golden ratio, O / 1 = (1 + O ) / O I'm just wondering if any of you scientific or mathematical Geniuses can make heads or tails of this "Golden Ratio", or maybe even explain it in a way that's a bit more comprehensible? daylia PS - if this isn't what you'd call "science", please accept my apology - I don't mean to offend anyone. And if it's so boring it put you to sleep, I guess you could always thank me later for the nap! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:37 AM Daylia: There is nothing scientific about anything to do with symbols. Symbols are elective, non-objective, and have no basis other than human convenience. There is no "external" symbolism in the universe. We invented them (we meaning humans). There is nothing scientific about opinions, per se. Goodness and badness, beauty and ugliness, have no basis other than opinion. Ratios may be mathematical, but they are only incidentally scientific -- science can discover a ratio just as it can discover many other facts. As to whether a ratio is Golden or not, that is an opinion. Not a fact. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,noddy Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:50 AM when I was working as a Chemist many moons ago, one project I had was to colour Bleach. Domestos as it happens. Now I found this rather nice dye that was relatively stable in the bleach but now the good bit... indirect light it was blue and in reflected light it was red. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: DMcG Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:51 AM The golden ratio is 1:1.618281828... (roughly). Or if you prefer, 0.618281828...:1 The precise value is found quite easily by solving the simple bit of algebra you quoted, but it involves the square root of five, so it is irrational (mathematically speaking!) It is claimed that various temples, paintings, etc are made in the proportions of the golden ratio because it is most pleasing to the eye. Well, maybe a bit, but I doubt if there are many eyes that can spot the difference between 1:1.61 and 1.62 without any kind of measurement. The ratio does arise as the limit of some mathematical sequences, notably 'whirling squares'. But before anyone waxes lyrical about the the fact you can add one to one side of the ratio and get the same ratio: of course you can. That's how its defined. But its just one of a series of what you might called gilded ratios where instead of adding one to the smaller term to get the same ratio, you add two, three, four ... In short, I'm with Amos on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,noddy Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:52 AM If you start digging a hole and go all the way through he earth and come out the other side are you upside down? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:46 AM I'm posting rather than responding in a PM because I think this conversation can have value for others besides you and me. I never tell a student they can't do something. (And encourage them not to think it.) I don't like whiners, nor people who put others down, nor people who won't TRY. Yes, I've encountered this kind of mindset before. Believe me, this kind of mindset is the most counterproductive one you can possibly have if your student has a legitimate learning disability that prevents him or her from being able to work with numbers in his or her head. When you have a student who has this disability, they will try, I guarantee you, until they've tried unsucessfully for a long time. When they do finally give up, if you haven't made any allowances for the possibility that they have done their best and they just aren't able to do it, you will have created in them a failure mentality. They will carry this around with them for the rest of their life, unless a teacher with much more compassion and empathy helps them erase what you have helped to create. Try to imagine what it would be like if you couldn't walk and nobody would allow you to use a wheel chair to get around. That's what it's like for people like me if we aren't allowed to use a calculator or a multiplication table when we have to do math. I was in a remedial math class when I was in my 30s. I had given up on myself many years before, but I had to take this class to get where I wanted to be. In this case, I was old enough and informed enough to be able to stand up for my rights as a student with a learning disability. I told them that if I wasn't allowed to use a calculator or a multiplication table for my multiplication facts, I would fail the class. They allowed me to use the multiplication table. I got a B in the class,and I would have gotten an A, except that I was unable to stay late after class to finish my final exam (it takes a lot longer to do long division using a multiplication table than for someone who is able to use their head), because I had to pick up my son from his daycare. Prior to that class, the highest grade I ever got in a math class was a D. It wasn't that I didn't try. It was that I had a physiological limitation that prevented me from being able to do what was expected of me. This is why I recommend you suggest testing for learning disabilities for your studen who is having problems. If she has a legitimate learning disability, you will not be helping her just by having high expectations of her. What you will be teaching her in that case will be that she is a failure. Teach her instead that sometimes people have limitations that others do not share, but that there are ways to get around those limitations, for instance by using a calculator or a multiplicaton table. And lose the idea that an inability to retain and/or work with numbers in the head is "fear of numbers". That's just not the case, and it avoids recognizing the fact that people can have real physiological reasons for not being able to remember numbers. That way of thinking sets students up for failure. I'm not afraid of numbers. I just am not able to work with them they way you do. They are not solid, concrete concepts in my brain as they are in other people's brains. For me, trying to keep a number in my head is like trying to hold water in my hand. For me, numbers are amporphous things that shift and change once they enter my brain. I am not saying that the language of math is not a useful one. What I am saying is that it is useful only for certain kinds of things. That's why in my last post, I said that the best language is the one that does the best job of communicating whatever needs to be communicated in any given situation. But as long as you hold the value judgement that math is a superior language, you are sending those of your students who are differently abled than you the wrong message, and an extremely distructive one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 28 Sep 04 - 12:35 PM Fred Miller, out of his unfathomable wisdom, told us: No one can match composer John Cage for boring writing. Now, There is a solid piece of science stuff we all know! Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 28 Sep 04 - 12:46 PM Ø (if you are on a PC, hold the 'alt' key and do 0216 on the numerical keys) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Sep 04 - 01:03 PM My God...this thread has exceeded my modest expectations. Bravely done, people! HuwG, you get the *** Order of the Gilded Pickle *** for your amazing contribution. It could bore the bollocks off a Cape buffalo. Someone asked for a definition of "New Age". Well, the most common use of that term is the derogatory use, e.g., as a putdown. It's kind of similar to the way "Communist" used to be used in America for many years...a glittering generality that can be used to lump together all those for whom one has little or no respect or liking. Quite simple, really. If you want to put down or discount or ridicule any philosophical or spiritual idea or new healing technique or revolutionary social concept or new financial theory or really anything at all that strikes you as unusual...just call it "New Age". And make sure your lip curls a little with contempt as you utter the phrase... There is also a positive use of the term "New Age", and in that regard you can find some excellent reading at your local bookstore, providing you pick and choose carefully from the selection provided and separate the wheat from the chaff. It has nothing whatsoever to do with New World Order. For that, go to the politics section or call up the White House and talk to Karl Rove. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 28 Sep 04 - 02:06 PM The side-question that's interesting is what we find interesting. A lot of my favorite stories focus on what is special, seems charmed with intrigue, and what seems banal and dreary. Joyce's Araby. A Neil Jordan movie called The Miracle, which features a young gifted musician who only cares about getting paid, while his less gifted father will play for any excuse. My wife read a story last week in which a baby is born black. Not racially black, just black. The doctor had warned her that the baby might look blue at first, but then it was black. People in the story tried to make sense of it, with a presumed black father, and so on. So I told my wife I thought it was about what's normal, how things become "normal" to us, and how it ties in to our sense of identity. But my wife had wanted me to explain why the baby was black. Sigh. A close friend of mine is a Yeti, and she worries that if she "comes out" people will soon lose interest in her. She's not very cute, or particularly talented, she says (though actually she's very attractive, just not in a conventional way, and is a great storyteller, with a terrific sense of humour) and so she feels her reputation for elusive mystery is her main asset. I think she's selling herself short. I want to try Kendall's bit. Ahem. The pineapple is neither a pine, nor an apple. It's a baked potato, smothered in three kinds of cheese, with sour cream, chives, and brocolli. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bert Date: 28 Sep 04 - 02:30 PM You are right CarolC, Math is not a superior language. In fact Math is a game. Unfortunately most Math teachers are unaware of this and therefore teach it all wrong. To those of us who love Math it is great fun and it can be wonderful when relating it to real life. Congratulations on that B by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 28 Sep 04 - 02:32 PM noddy that bleach of your sounds so cool I would start buying bleach. A tomato is not a vegetable. It is a plant. It eats insects by secreting acidic solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 28 Sep 04 - 02:38 PM Thanks Bert. I felt as much of a sense of accomplishment from that B as I would have if I had climbed Mount Everest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 28 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM Thank the gods for spellcheck. I cannot describe or explain the neurobiologic mechanisms involved, or even the scientific name for the phenomenon, but it is a fact that Dan Quayle, whom I have never met, destroyed my capacity to spell tomato. No New Age stuff can explain that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 28 Sep 04 - 02:54 PM Ha! You think that's bad, heric, in my second to last post, I spelled amorphous, "amporphous". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 28 Sep 04 - 03:01 PM Well, actually the tomato is a fruit. It develops from a flower and has internal seeds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 28 Sep 04 - 03:07 PM Fruits don't eat whales, Rapaire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: darkriver Date: 28 Sep 04 - 03:34 PM Sorry I came to this thread late--although it would be hard NOT to--216 posts in less than 4 days?? I appreciate why LH would have started this thread. Many years ago, I worked at the first coffeehouse in Santa Cruz, California (which, for those of you not familiar with the place, is renowned as a former node of hippy-dippy far-outism, especially in the late 60s-early 70s). After about 3 years of listening to the most inane, pointlessly speculative, and downright wrong discussions, I couldn't stand it any more. I enrolled at the local junior college and took courses in marine biology, zoology, chemistry, oceanography, etc. Plus some French and Spanish. I felt that this step was necessary to keep my mind from turning to mush. So LH's real point is not the superiority of science over everything else, but rather self-critical (or should I say disciplined?) looking at the world around one, instead of getting caught up bullshit for its own sake. Many of you appear to agree, and are pretty playful, even when it comes to question assumptions behind some of the statements. Wolfgang, whom I respect, surprised me with his remarks--they seem pretty derogatory. Thanks, LH, for starting this thread. Doug |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Raunch Q. Quiddick the Third Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:04 PM If you travel around the world in an airplane and take a good look you will be able to confirm that there are no longitudinal lines or latitudinal lines marked on the globe. Nor are there lines marked on the ground indicating borders between states and countries, although one can find certain features such as a river or a wall along some borderlines. My point is: these lines, shown on all maps, and believed in by people everywhere, do not exist! (except as a mental concept) Scientists and politicians and police and military people take these lines for granted, use them to figure out important stuff, and act as though they are real. Perhaps they are real then, in some sense...but they are not physical. There is no verifiable physical evidence proving their existence. So...why does the scientific mind demand physical evidence for something like the soul or the afterlife or God? If science cannot find physical evidence for a line of longitude or some other mental concept they find useful then they should bloody well shut up and stop moaning about there being no physical evidence for the soul or for God. The soul, if it exists, is not physical BY DEFINITION. Neither is longitude. One's as good as the other, if you ask me. Ideas are not physical, but that does not mean they are necessarily not real. They are a form of energy, and energy is real. An idea is very real, because it affects people's consciousness and behaviour. An idea has power, and it springs from a sense of meaning, and imparts a further sense of meaning. How about I leave you to be happy with your lines of longitude and you leave me to be happy with my belief in the soul? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: DMcG Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:14 PM As Lewis Carroll put it, in 'The Hunting of the Snark': He had bought a large map representing the sea, Without the least vestige of land: And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be A map they could all understand. "What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators, Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?" So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply "They are merely conventional signs! ====== That's not the same as believing they exist in any fundamental way. It is merely a convention that happens to be useful - in the same way that a 'mile' is a convention that can be replaced by a completely different quantity like the 'metre'. Providing everyone agrees what they mean by it and it is useful, an agreed convention can be treated as if 'has existance' in some sense, BUT - and this is the key point - it can be replaced by some other agreed convention when it suits us. But that's not the same as a soul, or God. For one thing, no believer is likely to agree it can be replaced by something else just as an agreement between a group of people. Nor is there is not that much agreement on what the soul is (and certainly not on what happens to it after death.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Raunch... Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:59 PM Right. You will also find that beliefs about God and the soul fit certain conventions of certain groups of people. And they find those conventions useful...but the conventions vary tremendously from group to group. Catholics have their conventions about God and the soul. Buddhists have a different way of expressing it. Pagans have another way. If science people have a right to use mental conventions and not be attacked or looked down upon for it, why should religious people not also have that right? Some people use kilometers, others use miles. More conventions. Either convention is highly useful, if you choose to use it. If having a conventional belief about the soul helps people develop a sense of meaning or morality in their lives...why attack it merely because the soul cannot be proven physically? It does not need to be proven, any more than it needs to be proven that a mile or a kilometer actually exist. An idea exists the moment it springs into someone's mind. It is a real idea at that moment, and it may prove useful...or destructive....meaning in either case: it has power and effect! Yet an idea is not physical. Things do not require physical existence in order to be real. No religion claims that the soul is physical. Why would science have a problem with that, when they do not have a problem with miles or kilometers or lines of longitude or a thousand other totally non-physical things that have been conceived of by people and found to be useful? I'll tell you why. Because THEY didn't think of it, someone else did. Someone who is not a member of their club! In the same way, you will find some people who are extremely hostile to the metric system...merely because it was not thought of by their club...and they will refuse to use it. Same goes for any conventional idea. Someone likes it, and figures it's theirs. Someone else doesn't like it, because it's not theirs. Scientists are hostile toward ideas that emanate from outside their own club. In this way, they are very much like most religious people. Scientists work from a whole host of arbitrary conventions that have no basis in physical reality (same as religious people do), and they have no problem with that whatsoever, because they are accustomed to those conventions. Both scientific and religious people naturally believe in anything they can find direct physical evidence for. Everybody shares that most obvious and convincing level of belief. My point is, that scientists and religious people also share the characteristic of believing in all kinds of things that there IS no physical evidence for. Everyone does that too. It's damned silly to ask for physical evidence to prove the soul exists...about as silly as asking for physical evidence to prove that justice exists. You can experience such things, but you cannot photograph or measure them. Nonetheless, they are real. They are real ideas. Take away a man's ideas (all of them nonphysical) and you have nothing left but a lifeless hunk of meat. Science sprang out of great visionary ideas, achieved everything it has achieved by the use of those ideas, and yet has no respect for other great visionary ideas that emanated from what it perceives as an "unscientific" source. This is prejudice and insularity on the part of science, which imagines itself to be totally objective when it most decidely is not. It is the application of a chauvinistic philosophy, looking only at what it decides it wants to look at...thus ignoring the rest. Material science, driven originally by the search for meaning, has finally found the gall (in some cases) to assert that there IS no meaning...only a clinical description of what exists and occurs in physical reality. That's an idea that has checkmated itself and ceased to be an idea that leads humanity toward anywhere useful. It's like a magnificently accurate camera with no mind or soul behind it to appreciate the beauty of the photograph taken or to even know why it took the photograph in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:21 PM GUEST, Raunch said, in part: Why would science have a problem with that, when they do not have a problem with miles or kilometers or lines of longitude or a thousand other totally non-physical things that have been conceived of by people and found to be useful? This depends upon a fundamental confusion between the idea, the description and the referrent. The land--the rocks, the hills, the trees,the ocean--are there. No getting around it. The miles, the national borders, the lines of latitude, are merely conventional ideas, intellectual tools to deal with the reality. Miles and kilometers are merely variant conveniences. No-one asserts that they have independent reality beyond the agreement of the users. One could posit that the idea of God--or "a god"--is merely such an intellectual tool to aid in dealing with reality. But when proponents assert that one of those tools (one of those "gods") is real, independently existing and controlling even with relation to those who maintain or believe in some other god, or an absence of gods, it's an entirely different matter. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:31 PM Yes, that's the key, and it's a rather subtle difference. I think everyone's idea of God is inevitably only a partial idea (given that God is presumed to be the Infinite)...therefore it is in fact a tool that the people with that idea are using in order to help them cope with reality and find meaning. Whether it's an arbitrary tool or one that springs from something real remains unprovable. How can something finite have a complete description for the Infinite? How could an ant describe the whole world? It couldn't, but it could have a sort of general idea about the world and its place in the world. That's what people do when they have ideas about God. People tend to dump on ideas that are unfamiliar to them or appear to conflict with their familiar ideas. This is because they fear that which is unfamiliar. It might require them to change if they accepted something unfamiliar, and people resist change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bert Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:16 PM There's no such thing as the infinite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:46 PM That may be the subtlest remark made in all the Mudcat's years, Bert! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Naemanson Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:58 PM God, the soul, the trinity, Allah, etc, like lines of longitude and borders, exist because people believe they exist. The conventions they use to express that belief are those that make them comfortable, like the use of miles and kilometers. And, like the lines of longitude and borders, the disagreements over those conventions can get people killed. Now if we can only agree to disagree.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:44 PM I agree to disagree as long as my disagreement is agreeable to all concerned. Otherwise, I will have to disagree with your disagreement with my agreement. I always aim to please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:17 PM I thought I was in touch with The Infinite - but it turned out to be The Institute - Gee! those Vans are comfortable! Noddy - you could have made a fortune in the Disco Business with that dye... "Maybe a definition of a straight line is that sequence of points through which a body in morion will travel if it is not-being affected by any outside force. " Unless of course the space thru which it is travelling is in itself curved... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:53 PM Raunch asserts: "scientists and religious people also share the characteristic of believing in all kinds of things that there IS no physical evidence for"......but this is not exactly true. Careful scientists do NOT do that; what they do is hold theories that are not proven...working hypotheses, as it were. This is quite different from 'belief' (which not-so-careful scientists are sometimes guilty of). you, Raunch, make a great deal of sense in your post, noting some obvious facts and issues that are important, but then you also slip into the trap of equivocation about some terms like 'arbitrary conventions'. One can argue that all conventions are arbitrary, but this is only trivially true. A mile could be 'arbitrarily' divided into 7ths with the divisions called 'florgs', but then we would all need to AGREE to that or we couldn't measure. Science needs conventions, but arbitrary only refers to the language and definitions, not to the rules of operation and interpretation, which MUST be applied as neutrally as possible...and fixed when errors are discovered. In many NON-scientific areas, the belief is treated as a given...sacrosanct, and when inconsistencies are noted, the explanation is altered to be sure the conclusion remains the same. Uncle Dave made an important point:" But when proponents assert that one of those tools (one of those "gods") is real, independently existing and controlling even with relation to those who maintain or believe in some other god, or an absence of gods, it's an entirely different matter" ...that point can't be made too often. This is not simply an abstract discussion where it is irrelevant where Catholics believe one way and Buhddists another about 'how' reality is approached--some of those Catholics **BELIEVE** that they are right, and others are wrong, and that there are ultimate rules about how life should be lived and who should be in charge of earthly enforcement. There are other belief systems which disagree---strongly! Strongly enough to do serious battle over it. Some societies and nations are ruled by groups who are willing to do extreme things in the name of god(s) which other societies don't even recognize. And, of course, there are middle-of-the-road groups in Catholicism and other groups who do NOT make a big issue of being 'right'....and if that's the way it was everywhere, Raunch, most of your points would be given and there would be no problem. You simply cannot characterize "science" as ".. the application of a chauvinistic philosophy, looking only at what it decides it wants to look at...thus ignoring the rest.", anymore than you can say "religion" believes 'this' and ignores 'that'. Science, done properly, is self-correcting when it makes an error, and properly done, LOOKS for that error. Much of religion and other subjective belief systems reject the idea of error in their basic premises, and only quibble over details.. (How MANY Angels can dance on a pin?...not ARE there Angels? and can even one dance on a pin?) We need to carefully differentiate between what "Science" is and does in principle, and what some 'Scientists' do, just as many Christians do not want to be associated with Pat Robertson, and many Muslims don't agree with extreme notions of Jihad and most Mormons don't accept plural marriage anymore. It is really hard for humans to sort out what IS from what they think 'might be'.....we have a long way to go just to agree on the ground rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:13 PM Here's an interesting thought I had today... if the earth didn't have any events that divide time into any kind of recognizable units like days, months, years, or whatever (yes, I know this poses some problems for our concept of life as we know it, but just for the sake of what I'm thinking let's pretend it would be possible), would humans even have a concept of time? I'm thinking maybe not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:18 PM The core "fact" of time is relative particle motion, whether the "particle" is the starry sky, the sun across the meridian, the moon or some comet. No motion of objects, no time. The belief in objects being the same object from moment to moment is central to this. Without some sort of relative motion of points in space, whatever particles you choose, there would be no measurable sense of time. But this is not likely to happen. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Ooh-Aah2 Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:23 PM Hello Bill D. - great minds think alike - I've just said a very similar thing re. your 'extreme holders of beliefs' bit over at the 'sketicemia' thread, within a few minutes of your last posting on this one. (Covers ears in anticipation of blast of scorn from Carol C, LH,over 'great minds' bit). I have joined up now and hope to spread the load a bit for you and Wolfgang, and others, in being a 'boring sceptic.'(Note inverted commas). Tremble fluffies - tremble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:29 PM Bill D. certainly does have a great mind. You, on the other hand... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bert Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:30 PM ...would humans even have a concept of time... Yes of course, the perception of time is inherent in anything that changes. There couldn't be humans if there weren't lifetimes. Even if the sun and the moon weren't there, or weren't visible, everything else that moves, as Amos says, or that changes would still give us the necessary information to dicover and monitor time. I know you don't like Math but, just for fun, get yourself a simple book on dimensional analysis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:32 PM Remember the old saw about how you can call a sheep a dog but that won't make it bark? I find some science boring. But not all. I can say the same of spirituality (in its various guises). The systems of thought are there for us to make sense of this world (universe) we live in. The miracle of life--well, it's a miracle to me--is the fundamental question facing all of us. Thus, we pose questions like "What is the sound of one hand clapping" and ignore whether the question is actually fair. After a while, it ceases to matter, because the search for meaning is a contextual process governed by the deepest considerations of a billion brain cells performing functions we can barely guess at. Recall the old shaggy dog story about the fellow searching for the meaning of life and whether there is a God. He travelled the world and with the last gram of his strength made his way to the world's wisest man who sat atop a tall mountain where he had been contemplating these very questions for his 97 years of life. When the seeker finally reached him, with his last gasp he said, "Tell me o' wise man, is there a god?" The wise man replied, as the light left the seekers eyes, "Maybe." There are aspects of belief that cannot be proven given our limitations. So too are there aspect of science that present as proof but are really not. The disertation concerning black holes (above) was brilliant. But we have no way to do anything but surmise, mush in the same way we surmise the existence of God. By definition, we cannot 'see' black holes. We extrapolate their presence, but like the box in the box in the box, we are finally, for now, left with supposition. Once, quarks did not exist in science or reality. Now they exist in science. And, so I am told, reality. But for all I know, it's God playing with building blocks, and I am not about to say He didn't inspire the genius that found quarks and made them exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bert Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:40 PM Ha Brucie, your line about the sheep reminds me of a study that was done way back in the Fifties. There were many farmers in England who were having problems with dogs worrying and killing sheep. So they decided that they would take a lamb and raise it with a litter of pups. The idea being that it would grow up to be unafraid of dogs and would then stand up to them if attacked. All went well to start with and the lamb grew up thinking that it was a dog and would run around with it's foster litter mates behaving like a dog and even barking. The moment of truth came when they released it into the herd of sheep and.... ....IT CHASED THE SHEEP!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:42 PM Good one, Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:46 PM 'time' is a concept abstracted FROM observation of events. We see 'before' and 'after' and name the interval time. It is mere linguistic dispute whether 'time' exists apart from our need to refer to things. (gee, Ooh-Aah...[boy that is hard to type!,,,can't you just be Jootminsky S. Warfle, or something?],...anyway... my mind has just been rated by Carol, and you say we think alike...now we can debate for 100 more posts whether YOU are automatically included, or can be excluded by decree...*grin*...ain't the mind a fascinating thing?) umm...thanks, Carol, I'm glad you like me for my mind...that body in the almost-nude calendar wouldn't get me very far! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:50 PM . . . or Lewis Carroll who named quarks before they were discovered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:54 PM you sure you don't mean Snarks? "...for the Snark WAS a Boojum, you see" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:07 AM Wasn't the big fish in the movie "Jaws" a snark? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:11 AM oh, I hope not...the subtitle of "The Hunting of the 'Snark'" is "agony in 8 fits", and I DO hope there aren't 5 more of those movies to go! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:12 AM Do people snarkle in the Caribbean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:15 AM www.physik.uni-halle.de/ Fachgruppen/Theorie/qft/quark.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: freda underhill Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:16 AM actually, that snark in Jaws was (no kidding) "Bruce the Mechanical Shark". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:20 AM Wooooo. Freda, how did you KNOW this? Origin of the word 'Quark' google this if the address above doesn't get you there. Actually, I did confuse Joyce and Carroll. Good eye, Bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: freda underhill Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:46 AM how did i KNOW, brucie? some people know about nuclear physics, some people know about logic and philosophy, I know the name of the mechanical shark in Jaws. and bruce, its not surprising that you mixed up Joyce and Carrol, try checking out the MOAB thread, arouns Sep 19th or 20th, for the poem by Clueless Errol, Hunting of the Qwark.... freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,noddy Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:34 AM you put hot drinks in a vacum flask and it keeps them warm... you put cold drinks in a vacumm flask and it keeps them cold.... HOW DOES IT KNOW??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: HuwG Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:47 AM Vacuum flasks don't work unless you believe in them. I put an ice cream and a cup of coffee in one, and all I got was tepid mush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 29 Sep 04 - 08:43 AM DMcG, thanks for putting the "golden ratio" through that preliminary "dissection" for me. The precise value is found quite easily by solving the simple bit of algebra you quoted, but it involves the square root of five, so it is irrational (mathematically speaking!) Well! There's that mysterious and irrational "power" of 5 again! ;-) But before anyone waxes lyrical about the the fact you can add one to one side of the ratio and get the same ratio: of course you can. Now, that's exactly what I found confusing. I'll just take your word about those "whirling squares" though. My brain cells are whirling at the very idea ... Amos, thanks for your comments - makes a lot of sense. I'm wondering about this though... There is nothing scientific about anything to do with symbols. Symbols are elective, non-objective, and have no basis other than human convenience. There is no "external" symbolism in the universe. We invented them (we meaning humans). This may be splitting hairs a bit, but how can there be nothing scientific about anything to do with symbols, when without those same symbols (numbers, letters, formulae etc) there could be no "science" in the first place? Seems to me that Science itself is totally dependent on symbols. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 29 Sep 04 - 08:45 AM Time. We have to differentiate between time and duration, folks. Time is what happens, duration is what is measured. (Or as someone defined it, time is what happens when you kiss someone and duration is what happens if that person turns out to have bad breath.) You have to understand the difference, and it isn't immediately evident. Right now, time is passing for me, but in this room the only measuring devices are the watch on my wrist and the clock inside the computer. I can't see either device, but time still exists. If I'm not measuring it, does duration exist? Or does it only exist for my computer and as some wear on the innards of my watch? Entropy must be distinct from duration, as my body (I'm told, anyway) is going all to hell even as I type. Hello, Herr Schrodinger? You can bring in your cat now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: DMcG Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:27 AM Daylia - you said This may be splitting hairs a bit, but how can there be nothing scientific about anything to do with symbols, when without those same symbols (numbers, letters, formulae etc) there could be no "science" in the first place? Seems to me that Science itself is totally dependent on symbols. This is one of the problems with language: the word 'symbol' is being used in two quite different senses. True, a mathematician or scientist will say a2 + b2 = c2 but the actual symbols are not important. q2 + f2 = h2 would do just as well, so would sqr(a)+sqr(b)=sqr(c), a*a+b*b=c*c and many other forms. The symbols are simply placeholders with no intrinsic value beyond agreed conventions (which we keep getting back to), in this case of mathematical notation. On the other hand, a pagan would usually regard a pentagram as significant in its own right as a Christian would a cross: it is not a placeholder where any other item you may wish to substitute would do as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: DMcG Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:29 AM Sorry about the font there, folks. [left out a /sup--fixed] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:34 AM Daylia: Science uses symbols, and so does engineering, and so do the authors of fairy tales. But symbols are not fairy tales and symbols are not amounts or qualities of real things, and symbols are not scientific facts. There is no "science" to, for example, the kind of numerology that adds up the values of arbitrary symbol sets and then tells you you are probably unhappy as a Walmart clerk...that is what I meant by my remark about there being nothing scientific about symbols. They aren't "science". Sure scientists use them to communicate. If they all suddenly started using encrypted Ukrainian Cyrillic to write their papers, the scientific facts and amounts would be exactly the same, I believe. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 29 Sep 04 - 10:12 AM The symbols are simply placeholders with no intrinsic value beyond agreed conventions (which we keep getting back to), in this case of mathematical notation. On the other hand, a pagan would usually regard a pentagram as significant in its own right as a Christian would a cross: it is not a placeholder where any other item you may wish to substitute would do as well. Yes, of course symbols have no meaning or "power" in and of themselves; the only "power" a symbol has is whatever "power" people may (or may not) choose to invest in it. Symbols are "wrappings" for the truth - and as such can be quite distracting, even deceiving. Yet imo it would be interesting to investigate scientifically the results, historically speaking, of using a particular symbol (ie the pentagram, or 50 of them! - on a nation's flag). It would probably be quite impossible to eliminate all the other contributing variables though (economics, geography etc) so that any "effect" the symbolism itself may have had on the "collective psyche" of a nation could be measured. And even if this could be done, what would be measured is not the power of the symbol itself, but the power of the beliefs or expectations people hold regarding it. OK, now I'm talking myself around in circles ... but thanks guys, I think I've got it now. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 29 Sep 04 - 10:15 AM Mm. Some artists use and discuss the golden mean, but usually their stuff looks perpetually like student work, or like technical demonstrations for students. There's a book out about math and the Mona Lisa, but it's discussion of optics and elusive smiles and such doesn't seem to me to rise above the level of a neat visual trick. Those moving images you used to get in cracker jack boxes have really improved over the years, but haven't risen to the level of high art yet. I think I disagree that symbols aren't real. It's like saying there's a "line" between art and life, when art is really a wholly owned subsidiary. Symbols are real in the firmest reified sense because people use them and think in the shadows of them, and actual things happen. Take away the concept of zero, or repetion systems of numbers, and things would probably be observably different. So if you grant that science can observe itself to some extent, or can observe people, learning, brain development, language, and such, you have to grant symbols some real status, but just so much. Why does a mirror reverse things from left to right, but not up and down? This simple problem was in my daughter's homework and generated a little controversy. If you take 100, divide it by 1/2, add 19, and subtract 11, what's your result? Why can math divide things longer than they are? How do you determine how high a kite is flying? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 29 Sep 04 - 10:30 AM How do you determine how high a kite is flying? 1. Mark the string where you're holding it and pull the kite in. 2. Jerk the kite so that it falls directly to earth, or have someone walk out until they're directly under the kite. Measure this distance. 3. Apply the Pythogorean Theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) as Length of string^2 - distance to kite/person^2 = height of kite^2. Thus: [100 li of string^2 =] 10,000 - [50 li to person/kite^2 =] 2,500 = a kite height equal to the square root of 7,500 li, or about 86.6 li. But I don't bother with such things; I just fly the kite and enjoy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 29 Sep 04 - 10:35 AM By using a known measure of kite-string, and measuring how much is left on the spool at any given moment while you're flying it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 29 Sep 04 - 10:40 AM Oops I just read Rapaire's answer, and realized I left the angle of the kite-string to the ground completely out of my "equation". Duh ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 29 Sep 04 - 11:32 AM kite strings actually sag, that is go from the ground to the kite in a curve. This is most noticible in long runs. Therefore you only get an approximation with the measurements noted. If I HAD to know, I'd find a laser distance measuring device and stand under the kite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:39 PM People keep talking about time as though it's been scientifically proven to exist. Has it? Or has "duration" only been scientifically proven to exist? Why does a mirror reverse things from left to right, but not up and down? Because we have microscopes for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:50 PM Time is a perception, not something that can be proven to exist. Concepts and symbols are two different things. The concept of zero would reemerge rapidly if you somehow ordered the symbol for zero to be discontinued. The concept of time -- which always involves comparing a state that does not exist with another state that may or may not exist--would resurface even if all the symbol sets for its measurement disappeared. Itis true that some people get too bruised by life and reality and retreat into a world of symbols becau8se they behave better and are less painful and give one the illusion of control. That doesn't make them "real". A pagan cross could be replaced by an upside-down chocolate ice=cream cone, and the reality it referred to would not change. The emotions of the pagan about his deity are not normally about the symbol, but about a postulated reality structure he thinks of as powerful and infinite. Never mind how "real" that is or is not, it is different from the symbol. When a person gets so immersed in symbols that all his emotions and rationale and reactions can be manipulated by symbols instead of thinking clearly about the reality behind the symbols, he is called a Republican. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Sep 04 - 01:22 PM I had no idea what I was putting into motion when I launched this thread. It doesn't really need me at all... :-) This is good. I will check in occasionally and enjoy all the contributions from you good people. Be back in 50 or so posts... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 29 Sep 04 - 01:29 PM Someone said: "This simple problem was in my daughter's homework and generated a little controversy. If you take 100, divide it by 1/2, add 19, and subtract 11, what's your result?" 208. That is, 100 divided by 1/2 (which is .5) equals 200. Add 19 = 219 Subtract 11 = 208 Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 29 Sep 04 - 01:45 PM Time is one of the four dimensions with which we can measure reality. It is "the fourth dimension". (More later) Yes, mathematicians and philosophers talk and play their conceptual games about other dimensions, but the ones that an ordinary human can deal with are four, which we can call length, width, height, and time. All of the phenomena we can actually measure can be measured by those four. Yes, I hear people just jumping up an down, saying something like, "Show me time!" I show you time by showing you movement or change. Change or movement is the other "line" by which reality can be measured. No, you can't visually measure it with a ruler, say, because a ruler as we look at it exists in the first three dimensions--length, width, and height. But the ruler also exists in time: It can be moved; it can wear away with handling; the wood may change colors with the application of light over time; and indeed, it had a beginning, when it was manufactured, and at some point it may be destroyed--all aspects of time. "What about the weight of the ruler?" I hear someone say. Gravity is a combined observation of the effects of the four dimensions, not a separate dimension. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 29 Sep 04 - 01:49 PM Rapaire, I believe your wife the lawyer has been logging in on your account. Look what she wrote, above: " . . . I will have to disagree with your disagreement with my agreement." Don't put this up with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 29 Sep 04 - 02:40 PM So does time create change, or does change create time? If we only measure time using change as our measure, how does this prove the existance of time? Why can't we say that it only proves the existance of change? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 29 Sep 04 - 02:52 PM It doesn't "prove" the existence of time. Time is a convention of perception, an agreed-upon illusion. It stems from the belief that objects persist. There is no objective way to prove the existence of time as it is a construct that is primordial to the material universe, which would fall apart without it keeping moments neatly organized as an apparent sequence. From within the universe, it seems inherent. THe two things that might disprove it are some quantum phenomena that appear to transmit information in zero time, and spiritual phenomena in which individuals transcends time and discover the creative center of things as their own time-free origin point. Rare, and beautiful when it occurs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 29 Sep 04 - 02:57 PM Time does not exist except moment to moment. Moments, however . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 29 Sep 04 - 04:17 PM "He saw God's foot upon the treadle of the loom, and spoke it; and therefore his shipmates called him mad. So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised." Ishmael at page 483 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,God Date: 29 Sep 04 - 05:47 PM Time is the perception of any isolated consciousness that observes the process of life (or being) from a particular fixed personal vantage point which it has decided to limit itself to...for what it would call "the time being". Earth time is a derivative of the movements of the planet on its axis in regards to the sun, one day being a full rotation, one hour being an arbitrary measurement based on dividing that day into 24 equal parts. Most people live by that system of awareness. A few do not. One could just as well live by a 100 hour system or a 4 hour system, if one chose to. The one element of fact in the whole matter is this: it does take one full "day" for the Earth to complete one rotation on its axis (under normal conditions). If some other factor (such as a passing heavenly body with a strong gravitational field) caused the Earth to slow down or speed up its rotation, of course, the relative length of the day would change...and this would produce some interesting changes in human consciousness. Some people might find it enlightening, while others found it unbearable. Still others might take only slight notice of it. Such are the wide variances in human awareness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:34 PM awww...c'mon, 'God'...what do you know about it? You are just pushing some silly abstract notion to confus... ZZZZZzzzzzzaaaaapppppppppp arrrrggggghhhhhhh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:08 PM LOL! I knew that was going to happen to you someday, Bill ... :-) (Just blame it on a random event of some kind, like ball lightning.) What I can't understand is why God hasn't zapped Wolfgang right in the most tender and private spot while he's standing at some public urinal in Stuttgart? I guess this proves just how merciful God really is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: CarolC Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:13 PM How do we know he hasn't already done that, LH? (It could acount for a lot.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:22 PM Naw. If God did things like that, Ooh-Aah would have been turned into a french fry some time ago, and he's still doing fine, relatively speaking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Joe_F Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:23 PM The golden ratio is supposed to yield the shape of the prettiest rectangle, neither skinny nor stubby. A remarkable property of such rectangles is that if you take three of them, and arrange them with a common center so that each is perpendicular to the other two, and each pierces one of the two and is pierced by the other, then the 12 corners form the vertices of a regular icosahedron. I have always wanted to make a colored model of that, but haven't the right materials. Mirrors do not reverse left & right if positioned in the usual way so that you are facing them. A mirror reverses the direction perpendicular to it -- that is, front & back if you are facing it. But the human body is roughly symmetrical right to left, and not in either of the other two dimensions; so on seeing my image in a mirror, it sounds less odd for me to say "look at that left-handed fellow in the mirror" than to say "look at that fellow in the mirror with his face on the back of his head". Likewise, when you look at a printed sheet in a mirror, you flip it so it faces the mirror, and you probably do so around a vertical axis. The mirror hasn't reversed left & right; *you* have. You could have reversed top & bottom instead. If the printed sheet is transparent, so that you don't have to flip it, you can hold it up to the mirror and read the image the same way you read the original. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:58 PM yes, that's the simple solution. It reverses front to back. But I once enjoyed a much more complicated discussion of it by professional engineers and patent attorneys. The math question was controversial because it was expressed in language rather than properly written. Divide 100 by 1/2 may mean by .5, in the customary sense of half of one, or it might be an adjective applying the fraction in to 100, and mean 50. I had my daughter write both answers, because I insisted the question wasn't clearly stated. It should be written as math, not mixed in with words, so you know what they want. But my opinion was not much trusted, because I'm not widely regarded for my contributions to the field of math. Just as, when playing trivial pursuit, I told my team that Pb stands for lead, they all went on discussing it (potassium? or maybe it's that stuff, what's it called?) as if I had said nothing. But Amos, the concept and symbol of zero were both invented, an Indian thinker, it's believed. The concept would surely re-emerge, but in a very different landscape of human endeavor than had been, because it's very handy. It's my hero, zero. What I'm saying is, the peculiar properties of symbols get mixed in, because true or real or not, we make them real eventually by interacting with them. Students whose language reflects our muddled expression of "eleven, twelve, thirteen" etc. trip up and slow down compared to those with a more sensible ten-one, ten-two, ten-three, etc. set of words. So when science looks at how we use words and symbols, and when we use them, things happen a little differently because of an interaction with them as tools. Song patterns of threes seem to have a special appeal, and that's also about how many times you have to take off a plane around a group of penguins for them to consider it normal, and stop leaning back until they fall over like a row of dominos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 29 Sep 04 - 08:47 PM Au contraire, mon frere! You say "The math question was controversial because it was expressed in language rather than properly written. Divide 100 by 1/2 may mean by .5, in the customary sense of half of one, or it might be an adjective applying the fraction in to 100, and mean 50." No. The math question was clearly and unambiguously stated, and stating it in math terms would not change it. You are suggesting that the solver multiply by 1/2 rather than divide, as the problem clearly states: "Take 100 and divide it by 1/2", not "multiply it by 1/2". 1/2 is five tenths. 100 (division sign) .5 is the operation prescribed. Written other ways (shortened) it may be expressed as: __100__ or __100__ or __200___ (1/2) .5 .5) 100 208 is the answer, and no other. Frankly, I think the problem as stated was intended as a trap for the inattentive. But if one pays attention, it's clear. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Miss Arithmatic Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:26 PM Students Please check your work before turning it in. (100 divided by 0.5 is not 208 on this side of the pond) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:29 PM "What I can't understand is why God hasn't zapped Wolfgang right in the most tender and private spot while he's standing at some public urinal in Stuttgart?" Jaysus, Little Hawk, have some mercy on the guy. Makes ya tingle jus' thinkin' about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:55 PM Dave is right about the statement of the problem. As for fair zero, while the articulation of it as peculiar to mathematics may have been invented, the fact of a zero of things has been with us ever since the first hominid found no mammoth ribs left in the larder, or no water over the next hill, or any other example of a not-there of something. Using it as a place-holder in a symbol system was a major breakthrough, understandably heroic. WHat a leap! But from time immemorial, wherever there were ducklings to be counted one, two and so on, there was also the painful consciousness of a zero of ducklings to deal with as well! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Sep 04 - 10:10 PM Absolutely. Zero is a concept anyone can grasp. To give it a numerical designation is only sensible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bert Date: 30 Sep 04 - 12:30 AM There's no such thing as nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 04 - 02:38 AM Thirteen is just an abbreviated form of 'three & ten', which I'll let German speakers here comment on... :-) (some parts of English language have Germanic ties)... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,noddy Date: 30 Sep 04 - 03:52 AM getting back to this mirror bit. can you then explain why when you look in a spoon you are upside down and not left to right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 30 Sep 04 - 08:40 AM Noddy: yes. But for boring, man, can anything beat Fibanoci Sequences? (probably not spelled correctly) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Sep 04 - 08:56 AM Bert - Exactly. There's also nothing else like it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 30 Sep 04 - 10:26 AM The Fibonacci Series is a sequence of numbers first created by Leonardo Fibonacci (fi-bo-na-chee) in 1202. It is a deceptively simple series, but its ramifications and applications are nearly limitless. It has fascinated and perplexed mathematicians for over 700 years, and nearly everyone who has worked with it has added a new piece to the Fibonacci puzzle, a new tidbit of information about the series and how it works. Fibonacci mathematics is a constantly expanding branch of number theory, with more and more people being drawn into the complex subtleties of Fibonacci's legacy. The first two numbers in the series are one and one. To obtain each number of the series, you simply add the two numbers that came before it. In other words, each number of the series is the sum of the two numbers preceding it. Note: Historically, some mathematicians have considered zero to be a Fibonacci number, placing it before the first 1 in the series. It is known as the zeroth Fibonacci number, and has no real practical merit. The Fibonacci series is defined recursively. That is, in order to find each term of the series using the definition, you have to find all the terms that precede it. This makes finding the nth term very difficult for large values of n, as you must find every term that comes before. However, there could be a way to find Fibonacci numbers without using the definition. If this were possible, one would be able to find the nth term of the series simply by plugging n into a mathematical formula. In 1843, Jacques Philippe Marie Binet discovered just such a formula for finding the nth term of the Fibonacci series. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 30 Sep 04 - 10:30 AM Fibonacci made a great pasta sauce. However, he never used tomatoes in any of his creations. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 30 Sep 04 - 10:37 AM Well, I'm sure you're right, but it seems to me that .5 would be clearer on the one hand, "in" half on the other, since a fraction can apply to other figures than one, and seems to ask, half of what? The reason you would multiply, it seems to me, is only because your calculator doesn't have a handy 1/2 key, while your head does. One doesn't multiply it in one's head, but simply halves it with a mental knife. Because it was phrased in a sentence, the adjective relation of half-to-ahundred seemed just as reasonable to me, but I seem to be alone in thinking it. Yes Amos, I see that, but it doesn't help you do complex problems with roman numerals. I agree that symbols only seem to "mean" whatever they are used to represent, through association, and I feel the same way about analyzing dreams. There's no reason to think they should explain anything, and if they did, why would they do it in some portentious code? My dreams are plainspoken and always say "Boy, you sure have a lot of dust-bunnies and junk laying around here in your head, dude." Still, however arbitrary, the signs and symbols we make and use have peculiar properties that come into play when we use them. It's the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis, I think, that suggests that different sets of symbols, different languages, don't simply re-name things, but construct meaning in different ways. English is a great language in which to see that language is arbitrary and a mess. Greek is supposedly more misleading in that it seems very logically inter-related. Whatshisname, Chomsky, tried to determine an underlying universal language of syntax, but only got so far and the car broke down. It seems that the symbols and tools might have some residual peculiarity, which leads mental development this way or that. There was test that showed Asian students performed differently in terms of western class-discussion. It annoys their learning process.Western students do about as well at solving puzzles while talking through it, Asian students suffer. And their essays are not so linear, but sort of encircling. I'm guessing western students very often do much the same thing, but here we call it Poor Work, and don't develop it. Kind of like how high western art for generations now has tried to escape commodification and materialism, but the test of success at this strange game remains "Success." It's very easy to merely succeed at it, success is all around us, it's called "Failure." If symbols have any effect on brain development and so on, they aren't quite utterly arbitrary and immaterial from a scientific point of view. Scientists can study that stuff. It's empirical, because we are, and our tools for understanding are--we aren't in some other world, above it, or across a real dividing line, looking at everything else. The idea that we are, or that science really quite puts us in that position, is fanciful--it's the fantasy of science, its airbrush unicorn. I still can't think of much boring science stuff I believe. Maybe because I'm trying to think of INTERESTING "boring science stuff I believe," to post, which defeats the idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 30 Sep 04 - 10:40 AM Wasn't Chomsky a gnome? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 30 Sep 04 - 10:44 AM Fred: Consciousness subscribes to limits in order to have experience, and syntaxes and semantic symbols are condensed maps of limit, each one defining an acceptable array of possible awareness. So it follows clearly that changing the limits changes the awareness allowed when encountering that symbol. It also follows that after a period of inculcation and habituation, the array of possible experiences awareness conceives as allowed begins to match thos experiences allowed by symbols. This is known as "taking up residence in the encyclopedia", and is also summarized in the pithy Yankee expression that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Similarly when all you have is a yard stick, all distances--all space, in fact-- appears in feet, yards, or miles. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Wolfgang Date: 30 Sep 04 - 11:55 AM To write about something you should have a basic understanding, to joke about something you should understand at least as much as when you write seriously. I've always found insider jokes much more interesting than outsider jokes. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 30 Sep 04 - 12:35 PM Someone (and I'm lazy enough not to go back and check who) said: Scientific theories are always disputable. You can always replace a theory with a better theory (more accurate, simpler, more complete ...) Many people misunderstand what "a theory" means. A theory, no matter how venerable or respected or widely believed, is not fact. A theory is an attempted explanation of a set of facts, procedures, or whatever. Note, "attempted explanation". Thus, Darwin's theory of the origin of species is his attempt to make sense of what he and others had observed in the real world. As more facts come in, or as others reclassify the observed facts, and so forth, the theory needs to be modified. This is, in fact, the function of science: To make successive approximations of what is real, successively better explanations of the relations of currently understood sets of facts. In legal affairs, a lawyer will base his case on his theory of the law, and often the lawyer on the other side will dispute that explanation of what the law is in a particular circumstance. Most if not all of the physical "laws"--such as the "law of gravity" are not fact but someone's explanation of observed phenomena. Newton's laws, while they have shaped our culture and scientific thought, are well thought out theories, but which in some cases don't hold up in all scientific contexts, even though they are entirely adequate for most real world purposes. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Wolfgang Date: 30 Sep 04 - 01:31 PM Dave, a very fine and necessary distinction between facts and theories about facts. Just one remark: I know that philosophers of science hate that for it blurs a mostly useful distinction, but sometimes a theory can become a fact when the level of knowledge reaches a new quality. Example: For some decades in the history of science there was a quarrel between two theories explaining why we can see clearly at (mostly) all distances. One theory said it was because of the lens of the eye changing its curvature. The other said because the distance between the lens and the retina was changing. Both theories could explain the observed facts and there was for some time no way to decide between the two theories. Both were theories in the usual sense of the word, for they tried to make sense of the facts and both hypothesized something (changes in the eye) that was not observable at that time. Decades later, new methods made what was before just a theoretical claim observable and from then on what was before a theory (lens changing its curvature) became a fact. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 30 Sep 04 - 01:38 PM As for gravity not being a fact, it has survived extensive scrutiny, and most efforts to disregard it have been painful in the extreme. Now theories about whether it is a wave of some kind or some other gizmo are another issue. As far as I know there is no settled anatomical analysis of why it comes about. If there were we would probably be working hard at designing anti-grav plates. My own opinion is that we won't be able to do that until we have a new model of space, what it is, why it behaves as it does and so on. But that's not even theory, just speculation and opinion, my specialty! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 30 Sep 04 - 02:22 PM Gravity is a fact (or maybe a set of facts) which can be observed and measured. But why it operates as it does, and even in some respects what it does in some situations are beyond the objective knowledge from observation. Newton's classical laws as related to gravity are useful in most real world situations even today, but when we get into far-out physics his description seems to break down, or at least not cover. And the "why" I suppose will be forever a mystery. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 30 Sep 04 - 02:56 PM Mass seems to make space act as though it is curved, and objects (also mass-like) tend to follow the curve of space -- which "steepens" in inverse proportion to the distance of a point from the "strange attractor" of the curvarture. At least I think that is right. How space manages to contain so much is an interesting question. If I were a witless object I would try and fight my way out... :)) Charming conceit, I am sure.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 30 Sep 04 - 05:15 PM Well, this stuff is cool and all and great to talk about, but I don't believe it. Since, therefore, "we all" don't believe it, this thread becomes oxymoronic. (I learnt a brand new word yesterday! "Reinsourceification." It means bringing outsourced jobs and stuff back inside a company. Feel free to drop it into your next conversation.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,William Shatner Date: 30 Sep 04 - 05:43 PM I think it's time I added a word or two to this discussion. Why? Because this is the 300th post, and because I am an authority on unconventional science, due to my years navigating interstellar space. I have boldly gone where no man went before on several occasions and I can tell you that I was NOT bored on those occasions. (Specially the one with the Spanish dancer...) However, Little Hawk has a point. Some science talk is boring. In such cases, give the offensive party who is pontificating at you a phaser blast. Set to stun. That usually does the trick. A flying drop kick works great too. Check out my old shows for that. And don't forget to buy my book. It's called: "Get A Life!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 30 Sep 04 - 11:20 PM Wolfgang, I'm trying to write comedy every day now, and your theory is holding up in testing. Jokes without a solid subtext are like tickling, as likely to annoy as amuse. This isn't good news for me, not the result I was hoping for. All the good jobs being lazy and doing next to nothing are taken. Are there any records of what people thought about static electricity before it was identified? Symbols: My daughter's homework was graded with a smiley face and no comment. She says everyone got that. Hm. Concept of zero: My son's was marked incomplete because he didn't write what he liked most about math class today. (Really he loves math, but doesn't like to write, and claims they were told not to bother with that part.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Sep 04 - 11:38 PM One might well ask what they thought about lightning too. (aside from imagining it was God's wrath) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Ooh-Aah2 Date: 01 Oct 04 - 02:23 AM Everyone knows that lightning is caused by Thor. Forth went the thunder god, riding on his filly. "I'm Thor!" he cried, his horse replied "You forgot your thaddle, thilly." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 01 Oct 04 - 08:45 AM While in engineering school I prepared a complete analysis of energy conversion and amounts to be expected during a lightning stroke. I can enail a copy if you are interested, but I cannot imagine why you would be!! :) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 01 Oct 04 - 09:18 AM Energy conversion, Amos? From energy to matter? Cool! How'd ya do it?? What sort of matter did you get? The world wants to know: What's the matter? Sorry. Got all giddy and carried away. Ahem and hurrumph. If, as Einstein's equations posit, matter and energy are interconvertable (and both nuclear fission and fusion seem to make this very clear), is the same also true of gravity? Inquiring minds (well, mine anyway) want to know! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 01 Oct 04 - 10:19 AM 1) Observe and wonder. 2) Hypothesize about why or how. 3) Predict what else you will observe if hypothesis is correct. 4) Design and perform a test of this prediction (with strict controls - one variable at a time please). 5) Evaluate test results honestly - "the easiest person to fool is yourself" (Feynman). 6) Return to 2 and revise [notice there is no End statement, the loop is continuous] There. That's all you need to know about science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Oct 04 - 11:42 AM No it isn't. You also need to know the underlying philosophy of the scientist, his beliefs, fears, loves, and hatreds; his expectations and assumptions about life, and so on. For instance, Darwin was quite a religious man...that would affect his view of reality and his interpretation of the evidence he gathered and the observations he made. He would most certainly arrive at differing interpretations than a man who was psychologically opposed to organized religion of any sort. People interpret reality through the screen of their perceptions, not just through gathering physical evidence and viewing it in a completely neutral manner. A mechanical device is completely neutral and objective, within the limited range of what it can do. A human being is not. The human being has a value system which is quite subjective in nature. Even animals have such a value system....they are full of both affection and prejudice, based on their past experience. That value system determines: 1. What evidence is even noticed in the first place. 2. How it is ranked in order of importance. 3. And what meaning is given to it by the observer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Oct 04 - 11:43 AM Ooh-Aah, I sent you a PM. Please check the red number indicating your personal messages at the top of the main screen. Click on it. Or click on "Personal Page" at the top of your screen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 01 Oct 04 - 11:58 AM You are quite right LH. What I have listed is how science is *supposed* to be done. Since, on this planet at least, scientists are human, one must be on the lookout for improper science (actually not science at all then) which has been corrupted by personal values - hence Feynman's warning about fooling yourself. The beauty of science (done properly) is that it arrives at a view of reality that is independant of value systems, and as true for a Hindu as it is for a Jew, or an Atheist, or a Romulan, or a Canadian. One is, of course, free to hold views based on values systems, but they are not "scientific". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:18 PM Yeah. Let's say that there were scientists among dogs, for example. If so, they would take no notice of a 2-dimensional picture. They would not see it AS a picture of anything at all. They would also take no notice of the written word, not knowing how to recognize or interpret the symbols. In the case of a televised film, most of them would HEAR it okay, but not SEE it...just seeing a meaningless illuminated rectange. A few dogs, however, DO see and are able to interpret pictures on a TV screen. I know this from having observed it happening. Most dogs are oblivious to projected images of that sort, but a few of them "get it". I have a feeling that our human scientists are most likely missing some stuff that is just as obvious as the examples given above (IF you see it)...but they simply don't see it, due to their perceptions and their general state of awareness. A lot of the New Age literature is about precisely that sort of thing...stuff that is taken no notice of by the conventional, materially oriented mind. A dog's way of observing is admirably suited to survival in nature, but it has some blind spots. The same goes for people. People can be trained to expand their fields of awareness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: TIA Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:23 PM And dog scientist would, of course, publish their results on peer-reviewed fire hydrants rather than in journals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:24 PM Indeed they would. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 01 Oct 04 - 12:26 PM The conversions were from electrical to light, heat and sound, Rapaire... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 01 Oct 04 - 01:46 PM Peer-reviewed dog papers -- yellow journalism of the worst sort! (Shouldn't the first word be spelled "pee-er"?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 01 Oct 04 - 03:38 PM Yes, that's how they do their pee-er reviews. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 01 Oct 04 - 05:17 PM I believe there are cultures of people who dont recognize 2-d images either. Read about it somewhere. I heard of a study that indicated you could re-set your internal sleep clock by shining light on the back of your knees. What gets me is wondering how they went fishing for that? And the other thing is a distant memory of being a kid, with insomnia, and a restless ache in the back of my knees. There are science things Ive heard that I wonder whether they are science or just things people say. You only use a third of your brain, I can accept, but on the condition that its like a warehouse. You could fill it, but couldnt get at anything when you need to. Its not known how aspirin works. Ive never noticed that it really does. You can turn lead into gold, but youll need a supercollider, and its not worth doing. Sounds credible, because of the general principle that a lot of things that sound cool to do turn out to be not worth doing. Eskimos cant watch movies, because their eyes are too quick and they see only a blur. I was told this was utterly wrong, and impossible, but then, that maybe it was true about early movies which were much slower. Studies show that people like to be as much in everyone elses way as possible, and so they congregate in doorways and passages where others need to pass. This I believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Oct 04 - 07:16 PM That's correct about the 2-d images. Some people cannot or have great difficulty in interpreting them. Lawrence of Arabia discovered this when sketching in the evenings at encampments with the Bedouin fighters, who were not accustomed to line drawings on paper. They were accustomed to script, but not line drawings, and they were seemingly quite unable to interpret his drawings. (It wasn't because he couldn't draw, either. He was a good amature artist.) It's not that the Bedouin lacked the innate ability in any way, they were just culturally unfamiliar with the concept, that's all. They could see things Lawrence couldn't too...in terms of signs in the sand, that sort of thing. With training, either one could learn to see what the other saw quite easily and "naturally". Some people can see auras. All people could most likely see auras, providing they grew up in a culture that supported the idea and encouraged it. I can see a pale aura around myself under dim lighting conditions...as long as I'm relaxed and not really thinking about it. Then I suddenly realize I'm seeing it. I have to remain mentally quite relaxed or I tend to lose sight of the aura. I've known people who are WAY better at seeing them than I am, and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt their word about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 01 Oct 04 - 08:43 PM I Can See Your Aura, and It's Ugly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 01 Oct 04 - 10:21 PM I only see auras when a live actor is exceptionally good. At some point it becomes buzzy and focused while Im watching, very much a visual thing, and not that I'm transported or such into the world of the perfomance. It's a performance, but credible, as that. I see some odd thing sometimes when I think someone is acting exceptionally well. I guess I wonder more about what people thought of static electricity than lightning because it's such a small and intimate phenomenon. People would always have talked about lightning, it's more public. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Boab Date: 02 Oct 04 - 03:09 AM A straight line---the shortest distance between two pints. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 02 Oct 04 - 07:51 AM Cause I can see your aura and it's ugly Your spirit must be rotten to the core To a new-age guy like me you'll bring pain and misery So dear I cannot love you anymore ... Heh, that's kinda funny Bill! I'm getting this big leaky black hole in my aura just thinking about singing it though ... ;-) Speaking about auras - weather permitting, I'm usually outside just before dawn, standing there practicing Qigong (a "soft" martial art like Tai Chi). As long as I don't look directly at them, I can always see a white cloud-like field surrounding the trees in the early morning half light. Modern medical science has no problem accepting, measuring and studying various invisible "bio-electromagnetic" energies produced by the human body, mind and emotions - like brain-waves (through magnetic resonance imaging or CAT scans) or the galvanic skin response (increased heat and electrical energy produced by various emotional / mental states). Why then do the skeptics consider it so "flakey" to postulate that the human body - and in fact all living matter - generates and is surrounded by an "aura" - ie this same "bio-electromagnetic" field that lends itself so well to the instruments of scientific measurement? It only seems logical to me. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 02 Oct 04 - 08:52 AM Bold As Love Anger, he smiles, towering in shiny metallic purple armour Queen Jealousy, envy waits behind him Her fiery green gown sneers at the grassy ground Blue are the life-giving waters taken for granted, They quietly understand Once happy turquoise armies lay opposite ready, But wonder why the fight is on But they're all bold as love, yeah, they're all bold as love Yeah, they're all bold as love Just ask the axis My red is so confident that he flashes trophies of war, and ribbons of euphoria Orange is young, full of daring, But very unsteady for the first go round My yellow in this case is not so mellow In fact I'm trying to say it's frigthened like me And all these emotions of mine keep holding me from, eh, Giving my life to a rainbow like you But, I'm bold as love, yeah, I'm bold as love Yeah, yeah Well I'm bold, bold as love (hear me talking, girl) I'm bold as love Just ask the axis (he knows everything) Yeah, yeah, yeah! - Jimi Hendrix A healthy person's aura is usually pictured as embodying the full spectrum of rainbow colours, according to the traditional Hindu understanding of the 7 major chakras. Hmmm, wonder if Jimi was singing about his aura?! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 02 Oct 04 - 09:59 AM I don't believe in boring science stuff! (Actually, I find all of it pretty darned exciting.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Oct 04 - 12:06 PM Yeah, that is pretty neat about the Hendrix lyrics. I used to wonder about that song. Bill, thanks for the hilarious "aura" song! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 02 Oct 04 - 01:31 PM Did you know that when Sea Monkeys are born, they have three eyes? And as they get older and closer to adulthood, they lose that middle eye? (And you'd think that something like that would come in handy!) This is one way to tell when they are full grown, although it is hard to see the third eye. A Sea Monkey's kidneys aren't located in its abdomen, the way ours are. Its kidneys are located in its head! They breathe through their legs, using long tubes that come up from their feet. The gill plates along the sides of their legs help transport the oxygen they need to live! (This is why they are called "branchiopods".) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 02 Oct 04 - 05:15 PM All the stuff below is from the following site which has thousands of interesting bits of info. Google FirstScience.com - Fact File - Facts 1 to 20 1/ The speed of light is generally rounded down to 186,000 miles per second. In exact terms it is 299,792,458 m/s (metres per second - that is equal to 186,287.49 miles per second). 2/ It takes 8 minutes 17 seconds for light to travel from the Sun's surface to the Earth. 3/ October 12th, 1999 was declared "The Day of Six Billion" based on United Nations projections. 4/ 10 percent of all human beings ever born are alive at this very moment. 5/ The Earth spins at 1,000 mph but it travels through space at an incredible 67,000 mph. 6/ Every year over one million earthquakes shake the Earth. 7/ When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, its force was so great it could be heard 4,800 kilometres away in Australia. 8/ The largest ever hailstone weighed over 1kg and fell in Bangladesh in 1986. 9/ Every second around 100 lightning bolts strike the Earth. 10/ Every year lightning kills 1000 people. 11/ In October 1999 an Iceberg the size of London broke free from the Antarctic ice shelf. 12/ If you could drive your car straight up you would arrive in space in just over an hour. 13/ Human tapeworms can grow up to 22.9m. 14/ The Earth is 4.56 billion years old...the same age as the Moon and the Sun. 15/ The dinosaurs became extinct before the Rockies or the Alps were formed. 16/ Female black widow spiders eat their males after mating. 17/ When a flea jumps, the rate of acceleration is 20 times that of the space shuttle during launch. 18/ Webhosting.info have estimated that the United States has over 22,000 web hosting companies and over 25 million domain names! 19/ If our Sun were just inch in diameter, the nearest star would be 445 miles away. 20/ The Australian billygoat plum contains 100 times more vitamin C than an orange. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 02 Oct 04 - 05:19 PM Number 40 from that site: A pig's orgasm lasts for 30 minutes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Oct 04 - 06:24 PM That would be an experience not easy to forget. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 02 Oct 04 - 08:33 PM I'm sure I'll never know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Peace Date: 02 Oct 04 - 08:43 PM Number 3309 from that site: Great White Sharks have seven senses. They can detect minute electrical charges eg from a seal's muscle contraction - using jelly filled canals in the head, called ampullae of Lorenzini. They can also detect changes in water pressure. They are also able to feel vibrations in the water using a line of canals that go from their head to tails. Called a "lateral line", these canals are filled with water and contain sensory cells with hairs growing out of them. These hairs move when the water vibrates and alerts the shark to potential prey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:18 AM Recent scientific discoveries (since about the first of July): * Archaeologists found a 1,000-years-old brewery in southern Peru that may be the oldest large-scale brewery ever found in the Andes. Remains of the facility were uncovered on Cerro Baúl, a mountaintop city, home to elite members of the Wari Empire AD 600-1000. Predating the Inca Empire by at least four centuries, this brewery made chicha, a fermented beverage similar to beer that played an important role in ritual feasting and drinking during Peru's first empire. * [The] discovery of a cooking hearth and artifacts including thousands of bone fragments may settle for good the debate about where the Donner family camped and whether they resorted to cannibalism to survive being trapped by snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains. The find was made by a team led by archaeologists from the University of Oregon and the University of Montana working at Alder Creek Camp near Truckee, Calif. * What happens to painkillers, antibiotics and other medicines after their work is done, and they end up in the wastewater stream? The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is using laboratory experiments to help answer this question by studying what happens to pharmaceuticals when they react with chlorine--a disinfectant commonly used in wastewater treatment. * A team of Texas A&M University and Louisiana State University scientists conducted a research cruise in late August to the "dead zone" - a region in the northern Gulf of Mexico that suffers from low oxygen and results in huge marine losses - and much to their surprise, the "dead zone" area had either moved or had disappeared completely. * A report by Yale physicists in the journal Nature describes the first coherent coupling of a single photon to a single superconducting qubit (quantum bit or "artificial atom"). This new paradigm for quantum optics allows experiments in a micro-chip electrical circuit using microwaves instead of visible photons and lasers. * In Nature, a Yale mathematician presents models showing that the most recent person who was a direct ancestor of all humans currently alive may have lived just a few thousand years ago. "While we may not all be 'brothers,' the models suggest we are all hundredth cousins or so," said Joseph T. Chang, professor in the Department of Statistics at Yale University and senior author on the paper. * Despite a long-standing international ban on ivory trade, African elephants continue to be killed in large numbers for their prized tusks. But a team headed by a University of Washington biologist has devised a new means of determining the geographic origin of ivory that could prove a potent tool in slowing elephant poaching and the illegal ivory trade by identifying hot spots where enforcement should be increased. * A Temple University environmental engineer has outlined new mathematical procedures, or techniques, to produce analytical solutions of the complex, non-linear equations of water flow in soils. These new techniques will help with the development of more accurate and more efficient flood forecasting and contaminant propagation predictions. * Researchers led by Wilfred M. Post of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory describe in the October 2004 issue of BioScience an approach to assessing "promising" techniques for mitigating global warming caused by the greenhouse effect. Agriculturally based options for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by increasing sequestration of carbon in soils "should be evaluated to see how competitive they are in comparison with a variety of other options," according to Post's team. * According to a study directed by Phouthone Keohavong, Ph.D., associate professor, department of environmental and occupational health, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, individuals in Xuan Wei County, China, exposed to smoky coal emissions from cooking and heating their homes may carry genetic mutations that greatly increase their risk of developing lung cancer. The study is being presented Oct. 3 at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Environmental Mutagen Society in Pittsburgh. * Changes in U.S. forests caused by shifts in land use practices may have inadvertently worsened ozone pollution, according to a study led by Princeton University scientists. Heck, that's enough for now. I'll see about posting some other research summaries later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Cluin Date: 03 Oct 04 - 07:15 PM Dolphins are so hyperintelligent that after only a few short weeks of captivity, they can train human beings to stand at the edge of their pools and offer them fresh fish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:18 PM The intelligence of dolphins is unquestionable. Yesterday I was out in a kayak on an expanse of the Pacific Ocean and a pod of dolphins began breaching all around me and we played tag for thirty minutes or so going hither and yon. They are much smarter than the average subscriber to the Mudcat, for example -- they ignored me!! **bg** Seriously, it was a real pleasure to be able to see them from so close -- a few feet away. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Cluin Date: 03 Oct 04 - 10:25 PM Very cool, Amos. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: 42 Date: 04 Oct 04 - 07:22 AM If only two negatives did make a positive! j |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 04 Oct 04 - 07:55 AM Only in logic! I've had bunches and bunches of negatives together for years and years and they stay negatives and I have to have prints made anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 04 Oct 04 - 10:35 AM Ah, but a positive print is the negative of the negative! Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 04 Oct 04 - 10:43 AM So, if I scan a photographic negative into my computer, and then reverse the colors, I have a positive of the negative. And if I do that again, I have a negative of the positive negative! And if I do that again, I have a postitive of the negative positive negative. And if I do it again My head hurts. I'm going to go lay down now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 04 Oct 04 - 12:22 PM Cluin: That's true about the dolphins, but I saw a malamute who had trained a woman in a fur coat and high heels to pick up its own feces after him!! My brother refused the same efforts by his retriever, based on his logical conclusion that if the aliens arrive and see humans doing that, "who do you think they'll sign the Treaty with?" I had the same adventure as yourn, Amos, except that the kayak was a 12' aluminum cartopper, the chop was higher than the gunwhale, and the dolphins were killer whales surfacing on all sides. I felt alive that day! "To any meditative Magian rover, this serene Pacific, once beheld, must ever after be the sea of his adoption. It rolls the midmost waters of the world, the Indian ocean and Atlantic being but its arms. . . . Thus this mysterious, divine Pacific zones the world's whole bulk about; makes all coasts one bay to it; seems the tide-beating heart of earth." Ishmael at p. 478. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 04 Oct 04 - 01:00 PM Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --Arthur C. Clarke, Technology and the Future |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,Fossil Date: 05 Oct 04 - 07:23 AM OK, enough thread drift already.... Guest TIA and LH have between them produced a pretty good analysis of what the belief system we know as "science" is about and how it works. That it works - and doesn't really conflict with the other belief systems we know as "religions" or "New Age philosophies" - will be obvious to anyone who has used a mobile phone, a GPS system or a digital camera lately. And I am aware that these things are the result of the application of technology based on a mixture of science and concepts of measurement (when I programme the GPS on my boat to help me find the way to a port, I use the artificial conventions of latitude and longitude to do it, but it works pretty well in the real world). One other concept I'd like to chuck into the debate is that of statistics. "Experimental scientific" enquiry into natural phenomena is based on the idea that ANYONE - approaching the theory from any philosophical angle - can repeat the experiment described and should be able to get the same result. In fact, of course, this isn't the case, particularly where the experimental methods are inadequate. That's why medical science for example uses statistical analysis of large numbers of results to eliminate as far as possible the effects of observational variation on the conclusions that can be drawn from a given theory. And the next time anyone comes at you with statements like "Science doesn't have all the answers - my uncle smoked 100 cigarettes a day and he lived to be 95", you can retaliate with the statistician's put-down "A sample of one proves NOTHING!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: DMcG Date: 05 Oct 04 - 07:44 AM Surely statistics are the thing none of us believe? Every scientist (or at least any mathematically trained one) is aware that statistics can be easily distorted accidentally and every cynic knows they can be easily distorted on purpose! More precisely, statistics has as its purpose throwing away irrelevant data and retaining the relevant. That's hard. Not only that, it involves value judgements all along the way about what is and what is not relevant. Often these judgements are hidden under the shroud of the mathematical process itself, but they are still there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: TIA Date: 05 Oct 04 - 08:34 AM Oh my. Not true DMcG. That is not the purpose of statistics at all. It is, in fact a way of making value judgements in a totally NON-subjective way. For instance, if 30 people take a new drug, and 30 people with the same condition do not, and 12 of the drug-takers improve, while 8 of the non-drug-takers improve, does this result indicate that the drug works? What if the test is redone by another scientist (as it most certainly should be), and the results are 11 out of 37 drug-taker improvements vs. 9 out of 32 non-drug-takers - does this result support the first study? Or how about this one (the answer will boggle your mind): If you are tested for a disease that occurs in 0.1% of the population using a test that gives the correct result 90% of the time, what is the probability that you have the disease? Hint - it's darn small! Yes, statistics have been used by the unscrupulous or ill-informed to "prove" untrue hypotheses, but the best defense against this is to become educated regarding the proper use of statistics, not to dismiss this powerful tool of objectivity. If someone hits their thumb with a hammer, don't throw away yours and try to push the nails in with your fingers! I strongly recommend the following book to the scientst and (especially) non-scientist alike - Statistical Tricks and Traps: An Illustrated Guide to the Misuses of Statistics by Ennis C. Almer Read this, and the shroud is easily removed in most cases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: TIA Date: 05 Oct 04 - 08:43 AM Oops, forgot to specify in question two that your test is positive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: DMcG Date: 05 Oct 04 - 08:52 AM Sorry, I was not attempting to dismiss the subject at all - it would be unwise as I have spent a lot of time working in companies producing statistics! My point was intended to be that dealing with statistics is one of those branches of mathematics where it is relatively easy for even an expert to slip up (others examples include probability theory and queueing theory). It takes real effort and dedication to ensure you are getting things things right and using the right measures. As such, every scientist finding things being revealed based on the statistical nature of the results needs to be very careful that not only were the experiements done properly but also the statistics based upon them were done properly. To take a very simple example, you may decide to work to 95% confidence levels in the results. Once you have done that, the processes are very well defined. But why did you come to choose 95% in the first place? That's one of the places where unintentional bias can occur. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:03 AM God does not play dice with the Universe, pontificated Einstein, who simply would not accept quantum mechanics. Berty, thou shouldst be living in this hour!! If I reject statistics can I gamble without losing, live forever while doing anything I want to, and be assured that nuclear weapons won't go boom? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: MMario Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:12 AM Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: TIA Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:21 AM Right you are DmcG. And, any scientist who screws up his statistics (or any other aspect of a test) should rightly expect to get savaged by her or his peers (and later, hopefully, make up over beer and strumming). It's the openess of absolutely everything to question that makes science scientific. P.S. If you tested positive, the odds are 50-50 that you actually have the disease. (I hope I did this math correctly, or I must be savaged, then given beer) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: TIA Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:22 AM MMario - Houdini would certainly agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 05 Oct 04 - 10:43 AM Seems to me that the chances that you have a disease are ALWAYS 50-50: you either do or you don't. Same as the chances for snow in Death Valley in July.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 05 Oct 04 - 10:46 AM Rapaire: By that logic you have just dramatically improved the chances of winning the lottery, since your ticket either will win, or will not. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 05 Oct 04 - 11:15 AM Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology ... any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic Well there's often a line drawn these days between "magic" and "magick" -- "magic" meaning Houdini-type entertainment, tricks and optical illusions (like pulling a rabbit out of a hat; and "magick" meaning the ancient metaphysical or occult "sciences", as practiced today by ceremonial magicians etc. Magickal / occult "science" is anything but boring, and about as far removed from stage magic as classical music is from rap. There's some interesting observations about science, math and magick (notice the 'k'!) at this site Math and Magick ie "Mathematics is the science of structure and pattern in general." --Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mathematics "MAGICK is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." --Aleister Crowley, Magick in Theory and Practice Notice how Mr Crowley does NOT say "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to APPEAR to occur, in conformity with sleight of hand, optical illusions or any other type of amusing trickery! daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 05 Oct 04 - 11:40 AM The presence of WIll in the appaarencies of the world is something very, very few scientists attach much importance to. Yet aware will of some kind is very much part of the show around us. It is hard to tease out the strands of how these things --- will or intent, awareness, forces and particles -- actually interconnect and interact. Many scientists can't start doing so because their methodologies are bound up with "matter only" perspectives which don't admit other phenomena. And, too, there is alot of matter-only experimenting still around to do. I like Crowley, even though I think of him as a nut. He is a smart nut. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 05 Oct 04 - 11:56 AM And the next time anyone comes at you with statements like "Science doesn't have all the answers - my uncle smoked 100 cigarettes a day and he lived to be 95", you can retaliate with the statistician's put-down "A sample of one proves NOTHING!" Not quite. It doesn't prove much, granted. But in the instance cited, it proves that it is possible to reach at least 95 while smoking 100 cigarettes a day. To put it conversely, it proves that smoking 100 cigarettes a day does not 100% preclude a smoker's living to that age. This (while it might be interesting) is not very useful knowledge. It doesn't PROVE that smoking 101 cigarettes a day won't prevent living to 95. It doesn't prove even that smoking that same 100 cigarettes a day won't prevent living to 96. A sample of one proves only a very narrow point, for sure. And as I say, not very useful. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 05 Oct 04 - 12:20 PM Well there is an interesting example about the difference between physics-based science and spirituality. Although there are common factors between almost all beings operating int he material univer,se I suppose, the most important aspects of any one of them is found in his highly individualistic decisions and self-defined creations etc, not the common bits, while in science it is all common bits. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 05 Oct 04 - 08:32 PM on the other hand, proving that it's very very unlikely that you have a disease is a pretty narrow and not very useful point if you do in fact have the disease. Most likely you'll get the cure du jour for anything more common, quicker to get rid of you. Autopsies are much less common than they used to be. They helped check for mistakes. I still think there's a big difference between science, and applied science. Inventors often make big advances in applied science out of old scientific news. What will fly as an invention is often aboutmarketing, culture, and accident, as much as the underlying science. People get all excited about "science" like the internet, but more humdrum things are the real heart of it--who would buy anything online if a shipper couldn't get it to you fast? The heart of the Sears Roebuck catalogue was a pallet you drag behind your horses to rut the road so rain ran off, invented by a farmer. It enabled rural post delivery. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM I much prefer a different distinction from "science and applied science". Seems to me the distinction is science and engineering. Science is organized curiosity. This results in knowledge about various aspects of reality. The effort to apply that knowledge, to control it in order to make things that work, is engineering. Whether it's building an auditorium, designing and building an interstellar rocket, producing a designer drug to cure "whatever", it's engineering. Yes, before someone contradicts me on this score, there is a lot of designing and building in the process of making the equipment whereby one can do scientific investigation, but the designing and building of an electron microscope, we'll say, is engineering, but what's done with the 'scope in the real world MAY be science, or may be other engineering. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 05 Oct 04 - 11:04 PM I can state with confidence that if you smoke 100 cigarettes a day in MY vicinity, you are not likely to live to 95...... as to statistical samples, I love the one my wife cites..."All Indians walk single file....at least the Indian I once saw was walking single file." Unfortunately, some folks think like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 06 Oct 04 - 09:36 AM Well, I wonder how many people - smokers or non - live to 95? Lots of 'em die even before age 60 whether they smoke or not, as far as I know .... And even when people do reach 95, I wonder how many still feel productive or grateful or even happy about it??? A short walk through your local nursing home might provide a clue about this ... My grandad was still climbing the Alberta Rockies training the Forestry students till he was 82. Four years after he retired, he died of a stroke. He was 86 - and had enjoyed a quiet pipeful in the evenings for most of his adult life. I don't think he had any regrets ... after being so active all his life it was very hard for him to be homebound. He was growing more and more difficult to care for, depressed and unhappy. I don't think he wanted another 9 years of watching his mind and body grow more and more feeble. He was "ready" to move on. PLease don't get me wrong - I'm NOT saying everyone who reaches the age of 95 is incapacitated or unhappy. And I'm not saying his life is statisically significant in any way - cuz it isn't. I just find it interesting. And he was another one who was ALWAYS giving me grief about smoking, too, bless him .... daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 06 Oct 04 - 09:39 AM Applied science is engineering. I'd agree with that in bulk, but it winds up involving other things, as nearly everything does. Sometimes sales and overcoming cultural conventions and such. Statistics usually come to me through journalism, so I take them with an extra salt-shaker, since I've never known of a thing first-hand that came out right in print. Even after you try to set the record straight, journalists tend to prefer their own trimmed version. According to journalistic science, everything either cures or causes cancer. Today it's garlic again, but my favorite is raw broccoli, and I add a little dip, which I don't know whether causes or cures, but it tastes better. According to other surveys, people with no experience or qualifications for a job are much better at it than so-called experts. Childless people are the best parents, for example. And in economics, the problem seems to be that poor people have all the money, based on field observations of them in front of you in the check-out line. Poor people do not seem to occur behind anyone in line at grocery check-outs, always in front. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Rapparee Date: 06 Oct 04 - 09:45 AM Childless people do have the tendency to become parents, don't they? (grin) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 06 Oct 04 - 10:05 AM ALL parents were childless at some point. But not all childless people will become parents. That's New Math. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Sam L Date: 06 Oct 04 - 09:13 PM Yes, but the point is, once they have kids, they don't know how to be parents anymore. Whether you smoke, or have a very rare disease, or not, the odds are pretty good you might die. The story of health statistics is we should scrape and worry about being cheated. The truth, for me, is just to die at a good stopping point, or at least, between chapters. I've already missed a couple. But then, to me, everything is about story. Don't want a ridiculously long epilogue, or missing pages near the end. Scientific studies show that if you put a human being in an empty room for a few days with no stimulation of any sort, when they come out they will have a story, with some sort of drama in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 06 Oct 04 - 09:56 PM That's a c;assic, Fred!! LOL! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: GUEST,heric Date: 08 Oct 04 - 12:07 PM Here's a dog sniffing cancer citation: Olfactory Detection of Human Bladder Cancer Those dogs were trained. However, there was an anecdote reported about a dog (the border collie) who was aggravated by (what turned out to be) a malignant melanoma on his owner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 18 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM *yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn* Now, to consult the Omniscient Oracle of Sci- *yaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwn" (oops pardon me) - Science. Why is yawning contagious? Huh? HUH?!? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: autolycus Date: 18 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM "because it is part of a mechanism that serves to synchronise wake/sleep cycles among different members of the social group. (Reference:Provine et al,Ethology,1987,v.76,p.10", according to Dr A.T.Chamberlain, Dept.Human Anatomy,University of Liverpool. However , it's only a hypothesis. It's interesting that thread is called 'science stuff we believe', rather than 'science stuff we know'. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 18 Mar 06 - 06:56 PM well, I skimmed thru this old thread, happily reading all the fun & funny posts...then I came to the one that refreshed it, and was puzzled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Mar 06 - 09:16 PM Daylia, it's not just yawning that is contagious. So are: smiling, hurling insults, talking, laughing, arguing, violence, affection, etc. Most forms of behaviour are contagious most of the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: *daylia* Date: 19 Mar 06 - 07:34 AM That's true, LH -- and Ivor, thanks for the hypothesis. I haven't found any info online about why yawning is contagious, other than that scientists don't really know. In fact, it tseems they're not even sure why we (or animals) yawn. Another hypothesis is to give the message "look I'm tired, but don't bother attacking me ... see the size of my teeth?!?" And a good question too, Ivor. But it's really not allthat puzzling ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Purple Foxx Date: 19 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM Cats use yawns to convey both trust & peaceful intentions. Perhaps our ancestors did likewise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 19 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM One of my cats regularly gives me 'the silent miaow' treatment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: autolycus Date: 19 Mar 06 - 03:58 PM *daylia* it's not puzzling for you, me and some others, but , for the rest ...............? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Trevor Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM OK, so....... Why, when there's only one moon every twenty four hours, is there two tides? Why do clocks go back six weeks before the solstice and forward again twelve weeks after it? Why do 'flammable' and 'inflammable' mean the same thing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Trevor Date: 20 Mar 06 - 08:45 AM Wooh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bill D Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM I won't go to site which: 1)require a specific browser 2)demand you accept cookies in order to view 3)require javascripts without warning you or explaining why that site tried to set a VERY large cookie, and made a little noise, then displayed a blank screen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Bunnahabhain Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:20 PM There are two tides ( in most places anyway ) a day because the Moon does not orbit the Earth, the Earth and Moon orbit a common centre of gravity, which is inside the earth, but in a direct line between the moon and the centre of the earth. The tide nearest the moon is due to the gravity of the moon pulling water towards it. The one on the opposite side of the earth is due to the body of the Earth itsaelf being pulled toward the moon more strongly than the water on the opposite side of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Skivee Date: 21 Mar 06 - 01:11 AM Hmmm, then doesn't that mean that there would be a local gravitational acceleration and decceleration effect as the observer spins about on our world's surface? ...sort of an atraction eccentric? Would this mean that your weight varies through the day (outside of input and output issues)? Would you weigh least when you are at the point where you are between the Earth and Moon and the most in the opposite situation? ...And what of the effect of the Sun in this? Discuss amongst yourselves. Compare and contrast...Anyone? ...Beuller? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: frogprince Date: 21 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM Skivee, my guess would be that your weight would fluctuate as you suggest. Whether it be enough to detect without extremely precise equipment, I have no idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 06 - 03:22 PM GRavitational attraction varies with the square of the distance. The differences you refer to due to the relative mass and location of Sun and moon are extant, but insignificant in comparison with the nearer massive center of the Earth. Boring science stuff we all agree on, but I sometimes wish were not so: 1. Inertia 2. Space being contiguous, persistant fungible, and seamless. 3. The relative solidity of particles at scales about the microscopic. 4. The predominance of light and sound as primary channels of physical perception over other channels, such as imagination. 5. The conservation of energy in spite of all our best efforts to make it be infinitely available. 6. The depressing effect of mass, time, and collisions on creativity and intelligence. 7. Having to play time as a unideirectional seuqence of events which cannot collide. Most distressing. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: frogprince Date: 21 Mar 06 - 03:28 PM "If I could put time in a bottle"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Boring science stuff we all believe... From: Skivee Date: 21 Mar 06 - 04:30 PM Amos, my questions are really about the interplay of multiple resultant vectors from several varying gravitational attractors acting on the observer. Clearly , the primary attractor in this would be the Earth, as you say. |
