Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Tue Nov 1st at 7:40am 2005
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Tue Nov 1st at 7:40am 2005
Crono tried to explain this to me once... here's the graph he made for me:
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Crono on Tue Nov 1st at 7:46am 2005
Posted by Crono on Tue Nov 1st at 7:46am 2005
Ha ha, I remember that.
I just noticed something that's wrong. I said light years then C/s ... wrong. Competley wrong. The units are suppose to be light-year to ... time ...
Doesn't matter though, it'd be the same graph no matter what time unit is there.
But, yeah ... notice event B, which normally happens far after event A and C suddenly occurs before event A and C and happens over a light-year closer. (Screw the seconds unit)
Like I said, weird stuff.
I just noticed something that's wrong. I said light years then C/s ... wrong. Competley wrong. The units are suppose to be light-year to ... time ...
Doesn't matter though, it'd be the same graph no matter what time unit is there.
But, yeah ... notice event B, which normally happens far after event A and C suddenly occurs before event A and C and happens over a light-year closer. (Screw the seconds unit)
Like I said, weird stuff.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Loco on Tue Nov 1st at 7:56am 2005
Posted by Loco on Tue Nov 1st at 7:56am 2005
Sorry, I saw "Intelligent design" and "taught in schools" and just had
to link to the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
http://www.venganza.org
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Mephs on Tue Nov 1st at 8:08am 2005
I think the world and his mates hat got the point that you were banned from TWHL Sp000l, and at this point I'm looking for people who care, very good, PM system, btw....
Concerning the thread, to all such fundamentalist Christians I'd say the same thing I say to the same idiots that dig up peoples grandmothers because they work in some way for scientific tests involving animals:
Believe what you want, but don't come running back to medical science when you feel a lump. Either pray or cuddle a 'liberated' hamster.
And yes, there are many many 'scientists' who will argue that somehow medicine is god given [insert generic psuedo science].
As a priest once explained, a man sat upon the roof of his house as the flooding waters came....first his neighbour came to help him, he turned him away "God will save me", then boats came as they rose further "no, God will save me". The waters rose round him a helicopter came to airlift him "God will save me". The waters covered him and he drowned. When he rose to heaven he shouted at god, "why did you not save me?" he replied, "i send a neighbour boats and a helicopter what more do you want me to do?"
Mephs
member
381 posts
38 snarkmarks
Registered: Sep 18th 2004
Location: Northern Ireland
Occupation: Office Monkey
Posted by Mephs on Tue Nov 1st at 8:08am 2005
? quote:
*Sp00L sees Seventh-Monkey*. Anyway, I totaly agree with you, seventh!
I think the world and his mates hat got the point that you were banned from TWHL Sp000l, and at this point I'm looking for people who care, very good, PM system, btw....
Concerning the thread, to all such fundamentalist Christians I'd say the same thing I say to the same idiots that dig up peoples grandmothers because they work in some way for scientific tests involving animals:
Believe what you want, but don't come running back to medical science when you feel a lump. Either pray or cuddle a 'liberated' hamster.
And yes, there are many many 'scientists' who will argue that somehow medicine is god given [insert generic psuedo science].
As a priest once explained, a man sat upon the roof of his house as the flooding waters came....first his neighbour came to help him, he turned him away "God will save me", then boats came as they rose further "no, God will save me". The waters rose round him a helicopter came to airlift him "God will save me". The waters covered him and he drowned. When he rose to heaven he shouted at god, "why did you not save me?" he replied, "i send a neighbour boats and a helicopter what more do you want me to do?"
Mephs
member
381 posts
38 snarkmarks
Registered: Sep 18th 2004
Location: Northern Ireland
Occupation: Office Monkey
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by BlisTer on Tue Nov 1st at 3:23pm 2005
Someone should invent perpetual motion and we'd be able to do some experiments ...
Posted by BlisTer on Tue Nov 1st at 3:23pm 2005
lol " SRC="images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif">
? quoting Crono
Someone should invent perpetual motion and we'd be able to do some experiments ...
i think you're joking, but just to clear it up: perpetual motion cannot happen as it goes against the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. the second law.
These words are my diaries screaming out loud
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by pepper on Tue Nov 1st at 4:48pm 2005
Posted by pepper on Tue Nov 1st at 4:48pm 2005
Evolution has always facinated me, and down at the end we do not even know how the universe came here. We can go a long way back, but the big bang is still oogelie boogelie for science.
I do not believe in any sort of god that created this. Neither do i hate religion, Though i cant stand it when religion try's to influence everyday science. Live and let live i'd say
? quote:
I have seen a survey that revealed most Americans aren't sure whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the other way around.
I wonder how many Americans know that water is a polar molecule. I have lost faith in humanity when it comes to intellect. The average person is grossly ignorant, and only every now and then I get surprised by some slim trace of intelligence in a person.
That's why I like hanging out with geeks (and we don't have a dearth of them here at the SnarkPit). Because geeks, by default, are a whole lot smarter than the average joe/jane.
Quoted for truth. Though i cant understand why you americans think so low of themselves
RUST Gamedesign
pepper design
The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.
pepper design
The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by mazemaster on Tue Nov 1st at 5:21pm 2005
On what you said about physics Maze, it is possible to show mathematically why you cant apply laws of symmetry in an accelerating frame, I just dont have the time or know how to do it right now. Talk to a physics professor, or read some of Einstein's work on the matter.
No... you can't (EDIT to remove ambiguity: you can't prove mathematically that there is no symmetry in accelerating frames). The symmetries in nature are fundamental. It is possible to imagine a universe in which there is symmetry under accelerating frames. The laws of physics would be pretty messed up there, but there would be no way to deduce which model of the universe is right without taking data.
Posted by mazemaster on Tue Nov 1st at 5:21pm 2005
? quote:
On what you said about physics Maze, it is possible to show mathematically why you cant apply laws of symmetry in an accelerating frame, I just dont have the time or know how to do it right now. Talk to a physics professor, or read some of Einstein's work on the matter.
No... you can't (EDIT to remove ambiguity: you can't prove mathematically that there is no symmetry in accelerating frames). The symmetries in nature are fundamental. It is possible to imagine a universe in which there is symmetry under accelerating frames. The laws of physics would be pretty messed up there, but there would be no way to deduce which model of the universe is right without taking data.
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Crono on Tue Nov 1st at 6:54pm 2005
Posted by Crono on Tue Nov 1st at 6:54pm 2005
BlisTer, that's not entirely true. There is no proof that perpetual motion can or can't happen. No proof either way. Although, the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't do that. The entire idea of a perpetual motion machine is that it's a perfect engine, meaning 0 change in Entropy ... which does no violate the second law of thermodynamics. (No loss in heat due to friction and whatnot)
Also, depends on the system, if it's closed or not, you can have negative change in entropy as long as the system is reversible. Perpetual motion, of course, I would assume isn't reversible, but that's okay, entropy will stay the same. It'd be a 100% efficient machine, which is unlikely, but you can't disprove it.
If I remember my physics, that's how it'd work ... the second law doesn't say anything against it. I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure on this.
By the way, Yes, I was joking. If you didn't notice I also didn't do any calculations to figure out how many years it would actually take for the ship to get to the speed of light, then how long it would take to gather information and again, how long it would take that information to get back, based on the distance. Pulled that number out of the air, but I would imagine it'd be something like that, or longer.
Maze, right, that's Special Relativity. Or is it General Relativity? I'm sure General is the one where there is no acceleration (You know that whole, can't go faster than the speed of light thing, there not being enough energy in the universe to power anything that has any rest mass larger than 0. Which is why I mentioned perpetual motion) ... in any case, I get them confused sometimes, but one has acceleration, the other doesn't.
Also, depends on the system, if it's closed or not, you can have negative change in entropy as long as the system is reversible. Perpetual motion, of course, I would assume isn't reversible, but that's okay, entropy will stay the same. It'd be a 100% efficient machine, which is unlikely, but you can't disprove it.
If I remember my physics, that's how it'd work ... the second law doesn't say anything against it. I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure on this.
By the way, Yes, I was joking. If you didn't notice I also didn't do any calculations to figure out how many years it would actually take for the ship to get to the speed of light, then how long it would take to gather information and again, how long it would take that information to get back, based on the distance. Pulled that number out of the air, but I would imagine it'd be something like that, or longer.
Maze, right, that's Special Relativity. Or is it General Relativity? I'm sure General is the one where there is no acceleration (You know that whole, can't go faster than the speed of light thing, there not being enough energy in the universe to power anything that has any rest mass larger than 0. Which is why I mentioned perpetual motion) ... in any case, I get them confused sometimes, but one has acceleration, the other doesn't.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by mazemaster on Tue Nov 1st at 8:16pm 2005
Posted by mazemaster on Tue Nov 1st at 8:16pm 2005
Special relativity doesn't deal with gravity, whereas general relativity does. So, special relativity is a special case of general relativity. I havent taken G. Rel yet, but the fundamental theory is that gravity field == curved spacetime. G. Rel is the one that deals with acceleration.
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Crono on Tue Nov 1st at 9:40pm 2005
Posted by Crono on Tue Nov 1st at 9:40pm 2005
I said was opposite then. Special Relativity doesn't deal with acceleration (which includes gravity). General relativity does. ![<img src=]()
" SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">
Like I said, I get them mixed up, sometimes.
I haven't had a physics class that deals much with relativity yet though ... doubt I will anytime soon.
Interesting stuff though.
Like I said, I get them mixed up, sometimes.
I haven't had a physics class that deals much with relativity yet though ... doubt I will anytime soon.
Interesting stuff though.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by mazemaster on Wed Nov 2nd at 3:31am 2005
Posted by mazemaster on Wed Nov 2nd at 3:31am 2005
So... back to the origional subject, why are Americans hostile to science?
I think it's because most people don't actually know what science is. They hear science, and they think people in laboratories wearing white coats and telling everyone else what to believe.
They think of the memorize-based high-school science classes where they were told "here is how you solve this physics problem", "here is what you get when you react chemical A with chemical B", "here are the parts of the cell".
They think of highschool labs where they follow a cookbook of instructions without needing to understand what they are doing. That's really only tangential to what science is all about.
I would bet that most people have a better intuitive feel for the scientific method then we give them credit for - even if they do not recognize it as science. The classic example (I've heard this somewhere before) is the guy who tries pickup lines at a bar, tries variations, and keeps track of what works and what doesn't work. That is science even if the guy doesn't see it as such - conducting experiments (using the pickup lines), methodically varying a parameter (trying new pickup lines), tracking results, drawing conclusions (these lines work better than those lines), and applying the conclusions to make predictions or improve his world (using lines that work more often).
I think it's because most people don't actually know what science is. They hear science, and they think people in laboratories wearing white coats and telling everyone else what to believe.
They think of the memorize-based high-school science classes where they were told "here is how you solve this physics problem", "here is what you get when you react chemical A with chemical B", "here are the parts of the cell".
They think of highschool labs where they follow a cookbook of instructions without needing to understand what they are doing. That's really only tangential to what science is all about.
I would bet that most people have a better intuitive feel for the scientific method then we give them credit for - even if they do not recognize it as science. The classic example (I've heard this somewhere before) is the guy who tries pickup lines at a bar, tries variations, and keeps track of what works and what doesn't work. That is science even if the guy doesn't see it as such - conducting experiments (using the pickup lines), methodically varying a parameter (trying new pickup lines), tracking results, drawing conclusions (these lines work better than those lines), and applying the conclusions to make predictions or improve his world (using lines that work more often).
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by wil5on on Wed Nov 2nd at 5:46am 2005
wil5on
member
1733 posts
323 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 12th 2003
Location: Adelaide
Occupation: Mapper
Posted by wil5on on Wed Nov 2nd at 5:46am 2005
On perpetual motion, Crono is right as far as I know. Theres no theory contradicting the possibility of a 100% efficient engine, but its not really an infinite source of energy. In any system, energy in = energy out, and a 100% efficient engine just puts all the energy into what you want, rather than losing some as heat.
I agree with the above post - most people dont understand what science is enough to comment on it.
wil5on
member
1733 posts
323 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 12th 2003
Location: Adelaide
Occupation: Mapper
"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"
- My yr11 Economics teacher
- My yr11 Economics teacher
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by BlisTer on Wed Nov 2nd at 7:30pm 2005
Posted by BlisTer on Wed Nov 2nd at 7:30pm 2005
well ofcourse you cannot prove it mathematically, the laws of thermodynamics are starter points, just like the axiomas in mathematics. They are based on experience, and are accepted to be right untill a credible counter-example is given (which hasnt been the case untill now). If you accept the second law to be correct, then you cannot believe in perpetual motion. 100% ideal processes just don't happen in the real world ...untill a counter example is given, so in that aspect you are right. But then the 2nd thermodynamic law has to be re-written. I still believe in it ![<img src=]()
" SRC="images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">
These words are my diaries screaming out loud
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by parakeet on Wed Nov 2nd at 11:21pm 2005
parakeet
member
544 posts
64 snarkmarks
Registered: Apr 30th 2004
Location: Eastern US
Occupation: n/a
Posted by parakeet on Wed Nov 2nd at 11:21pm 2005
Ahhh yes once again , a good topic morphs into the butterfly of physics
, lets just hope that we stay tethered a little bit to the main idea
;p. i'm really curious as to what other snarkpitters views are to this
topic. such as whether religion should be taught as an optional in
school. and should intelligent design be accepted as an alternative
theory to evolution *as neither are proven*.
I personally believe in classes that specialize in each religion *the most popular ones at least* and then an ethics class as an alternative . I also believe that on tangents teachers should bring up ALL the possible theories to an issue , for all unproven theories. *to keep future minds clear of bias incase of a false theory*.
Oh and science and religion is like comparing Pie to a Famous football player. ;P
SOooo .. which one is better.. *pie* - no response
I personally believe in classes that specialize in each religion *the most popular ones at least* and then an ethics class as an alternative . I also believe that on tangents teachers should bring up ALL the possible theories to an issue , for all unproven theories. *to keep future minds clear of bias incase of a false theory*.
Oh and science and religion is like comparing Pie to a Famous football player. ;P
SOooo .. which one is better.. *pie* - no response
parakeet
member
544 posts
64 snarkmarks
Registered: Apr 30th 2004
Location: Eastern US
Occupation: n/a
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Crono on Thu Nov 3rd at 2:33am 2005
Posted by Crono on Thu Nov 3rd at 2:33am 2005
Pie.
I have no problem if there are courses that discuss and analyze religions. However, what would the educational value be of a class that simply preached? Also, if you use the argument that they can be educational and preach, then why wouldn't it just be analytical? Since, that would include anyone who would ever take that class and not just people who're of that faith.
You also have to be specific with the level of education this would happen at.
Blister, taking that the entire idea of absolute experimental reproducibility went out the window with quantum mechanics, I, personally, have no problem tweaking the laws of thermodynamics. The entire point is to get it as close as possible, right? Not make it suit what we want it to be. But, I did mention a few times that, for our reality, perpetual motion seems really, really, unlikely. But, maybe it's outside our scope and frame of reference. Who knows?
I have no problem if there are courses that discuss and analyze religions. However, what would the educational value be of a class that simply preached? Also, if you use the argument that they can be educational and preach, then why wouldn't it just be analytical? Since, that would include anyone who would ever take that class and not just people who're of that faith.
You also have to be specific with the level of education this would happen at.
Blister, taking that the entire idea of absolute experimental reproducibility went out the window with quantum mechanics, I, personally, have no problem tweaking the laws of thermodynamics. The entire point is to get it as close as possible, right? Not make it suit what we want it to be. But, I did mention a few times that, for our reality, perpetual motion seems really, really, unlikely. But, maybe it's outside our scope and frame of reference. Who knows?
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Nickelplate on Thu Nov 3rd at 7:50pm 2005
Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US
Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
Posted by Nickelplate on Thu Nov 3rd at 7:50pm 2005
Pi.
Let me just clarify that I've not read anytihng in this thread that is after my last post...
I dunno if anyone's really interested, but Leonardo Da Vinci did some work with perpetual motion and has some neat drawings and concepts if you woud care enough to google them.
Just on the side of MY very professional theory: Perpetual motion is not possible because no machine is 100% efficient, there is always energy loss in other forms besides the intended output. Just like all the energy of an engine does not go straight to the wheels because of friction in the parts escaping as heat energy rather than centrifugal and kinetic energy.
Nickelplate
member
2770 posts
327 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 23rd 2004
Location: US
Occupation: Prince of Pleasure
I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com
http://www.dimebowl.com
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Pegs on Thu Nov 3rd at 8:11pm 2005
Yes, My spelling is still terrible!
Posted by Pegs on Thu Nov 3rd at 8:11pm 2005
very briefly read this one, got to the subject of religion and thought that i would say:
God is an awnser for the unknown
i back up my saying with: As soon as science figured it out, the "God" of thunder dissapeared didn't he?
God is an awnser for the unknown
i back up my saying with: As soon as science figured it out, the "God" of thunder dissapeared didn't he?
Yes, My spelling is still terrible!
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by mazemaster on Fri Nov 4th at 1:08am 2005
Posted by mazemaster on Fri Nov 4th at 1:08am 2005
I agree with you saying that God is an answer for the unknown, but you say it like theres something wrong with that.
Science doesnt "figure out" anything. It just rearranges unknowns in terms of other more obscure unknowns.
You say, "why is there thunder"?
A scientist would answer that it is because of the physical laws that govern electricity. But why are the laws that govern electricity true? That's the new more obscure unknown.
Maybe scientists can explain that the laws of electricity come from quantum mechanics, and maybe quantum mechanics comes from something else (String theory perhaps?), but if you keep asking "why", in the end you are always left with an unknown.
The only why science can give to that unknown is "because it fits the data", but thats basically equivalent to answering the question "why is there thunder" with the answer "because we observe there to be thunder".
Science doesnt "figure out" anything. It just rearranges unknowns in terms of other more obscure unknowns.
You say, "why is there thunder"?
A scientist would answer that it is because of the physical laws that govern electricity. But why are the laws that govern electricity true? That's the new more obscure unknown.
Maybe scientists can explain that the laws of electricity come from quantum mechanics, and maybe quantum mechanics comes from something else (String theory perhaps?), but if you keep asking "why", in the end you are always left with an unknown.
The only why science can give to that unknown is "because it fits the data", but thats basically equivalent to answering the question "why is there thunder" with the answer "because we observe there to be thunder".
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Crono on Fri Nov 4th at 1:26am 2005
Posted by Crono on Fri Nov 4th at 1:26am 2005
Good points, Maze.
It fits until we find something else to contradict it.
It fits until we find something else to contradict it.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Is the U.S. becoming hostile to science?
Posted by Gaara on Fri Nov 4th at 10:09am 2005
Gaara
member
219 posts
22 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 12th 2005
Location: Australia
Occupation: Freelance Gynacologist
Posted by Gaara on Fri Nov 4th at 10:09am 2005
What age was this poll based on? I say this because a teacher yesterday say be reading about evolution in study and said evolution wasn't real. She said there was no proof of it. Although she and another teacher thought this no students thought this, and I have found that probably a percentage of 5% people believe in god in our school (this is a public school though and not a private religious school). Even after we (about 4 people study) stated many points trying to prove eveolution she still wouldn't believe it.
Personally I don't believe in God but if he does exist I still wouldnt follow him; he could solve all our energy problems and stop famine and everything but he(or she) just won't (if he/she existed).
If God exists he is a mean kid with a magnifying glass and we are all ants.
But what do I know? I'm only 16.
Gaara
member
219 posts
22 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 12th 2005
Location: Australia
Occupation: Freelance Gynacologist
Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.
© Snarkpit.net 2001 - 2023, about us, donate, contact
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0142 seconds.
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0142 seconds.