Royston

No offense Paranoia, but what part of these points don't you understand...he really does have a responsibility, that was given to him by Oxford University, to ensure the 'public' have a clear understanding of science, not opinions of faith, it's perfectly obvious how somebody not versed in the two, are going to consider his 'opinions' as the opinion of the field of science...that is what he's representing ! The recent programme aside, as Bascule pointed out, it's not attacking religion, but primarily pseudoscience and the use of scientific buzzwords to sell products / claims, there's nothing wrong with that...because you can use science to debunk the claims...you can't say the same for belief based on faith. For the umpteenth time, logic and science can not be applied to faith. Meh, I've been sucked into this type of discussion again me/ sighs

Sorry about that, it was harsh when I'm not willing to discuss it here...I'm not sure this is the right place. I've just heard that comparison used way too many times, and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not in the same boat as certain versions of (for example) the Anthropic Principle, and the myriad of interpretations that can be attributed to God, which are, putting it mildly, many. Nope We really can, it's abuse of religion thats caused conflict...people are to blame, not religion itself, there is a difference.

I just caught the second episode of 'Enemies of Reason', and it addressed almost exactly my point earlier. It tackled issues that clearly are a threat to the public view of science, and very importantly public health...I was shocked that UK taxes helped fund a center of Homeopathy, it touched on the MMR scam, and the programme tackled organizations that used 'scientific buzzwords' tenuously thrown in to sell their products, and claims. Also, (close to my heart) it covered the media and science, and how the public are so easily swayed by poor scientific journalism. So all in all, I was impressed, and these are the issues I feel Dawkins should be tackling, rather than the endless debate of the G word, and faith. EDIT: However, I agree with John, that his presentation 'to the unscientifically minded' would of come across as arrogant, and this isn't a quality that should be attributed to the field. I guess it's hard not to laugh, and maybe scoff sometimes, when somebody is claiming research shows that black holes (black holes as we know them) are creating life within your spinning chakras. At least I think that's what she said. EDIT2: iNow sorry, but that statement is so hopelessly flawed I don't even know where to begin. If P&R comes back, perhaps we can discuss it...despite I'm sick of the subject.

Richard Dawkins is the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science', he speaks from authority, and it's perfectly obvious that many people don't have scientific backgrounds, and it's obvious that people who read the 'God Delusion', or who watch programmes such as 'Beyond Belief' are going to make the connection that 'science is against anything that isn't science.' Which is obviously utter BS. I think we're taking for granted, that we know the arguments in this field, people need guidance, I'm yet to watch 'Enemies of reason', but unless the topics involve people / organizations that are a direct threat to the field of science, then they should be left alone. Even then, you can't use science itself to attack peoples beliefs...you merely point out that science has nothing to say on the matter, so science is not a threat to your belief, so don't make your belief a threat to science.

I'm probably missing something, but the forces keeping matter, and galaxies together prevent this from happening, so the expansion is limited to areas where the forces are too weak to stop the expansion i.e between galaxies. Though it's obvious you already know this, so maybe you're thinking of something else ? EDIT: Heh, RyanJ beat me to it.

I presume when you say 'view' you mean, a new hypothesis put forward...maths isn't always necessary, evolution was qualitative , but it took a long time to come into fruition. It entirely depends what you're trying to tackle. With regards to physics, then maths backs up your argument...explanation can only go so far, especially if it's a rather poor explanation. It's generally easier to see where somebody is going wrong with maths, if they're proposing some new hypothesis. I think you need to be a bit more specific. If a previous theory e.g relativity, has been tested rigourously, then any new theory would have to assume 'parts' (for want of a better word) of relativity are correct. However, science being science, something new may come along, that may contradict or add to a 'part' and it will become subject to change, and the old theory will be modified. Physics isn't based on maths that have been plucked from nowhere, it's based on previous observations, tests et.c Define truth.

The question was asking what is Modernity, and what transformation gave rise to Modernity... http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ688611&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=EJ688611 I found the above, obviously the definition of the word can be found on wiki et.c Note, the link is just for ideas, it's still speculative.

Deleted

Not sure if this helps...http://www.ping.be/~ping1339/conics.htm

Here's a brief history on discrete space, I presume you mean infinitely less in a 'physical' sense (for want of a better word.) http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/notes/1027c EDIT: forgot to mention, the link touches on both continuous as well as discrete space...as Sisyphus mentioned, both are possibilities. As iNow stated, absolute zero is the limit, although it can't be reached...but if you look up Bose-Einstein condensate, in particular the experiments conducted in 95, by Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman, you'll appreciate the behaviour of matter when supercooled.

Well yeah, considering what Paranoia wants to achieve, how can it be anything but elaborate...attracting wasps, is obviously far easier. EDIT: Hmm, I'm sure I read somewhere that they use radar for agricultural purposes i.e detecting the whereabouts of insects on crops, I'll try and find a link (if I'm right of course)

That's true, sorry Pangloss, I get what you’re saying...I wasn't particularly with it, at the time. Although I'm amazed I typed so legibly, when I don't even recall writing that last night.

Not in the slightest, your analogy would be implying that a reduction in pollutants is 'global', and it's not, the reality is reduction in some places, no change in others et.c et.c If you were of good health, and you moved to an industrial part of China, the odds of a long life would be stacked against you...where as moving to a small village in Switzerland, the odds would improve. We simply have not isolated and removed pollutants on a global scale, and there are parts of the Earth where pollutants are significantly lower...if you havn't been, breath the air, and look at the sky at night in Easter Island, it will really hit home. Also, you're ignoring timescale...we've been around for a tiny amount of time for the kind of effects you think may happen to the rats in your analogy...however, over time, if an increase in population and demand continues, then, eventually we will perish. I've just obliterated an assignment in two hours, so I'm a little tipsy in celebration, but you can't put Earth in a box...because it simply isn't.

You could set up a detector for frequencies of around 150 Hz I guess, you'll need a sensitive audio detector, though you'll still have the problem of finding it, once it stops flying, and overlooking any other background noise. So IA's radar solution is probably the only choice, if you want fail safe detection. Failing that, a half consumed can of fizz left on the window will attract a wasp, or you could conquer your fear of wasps...somehow.

What who wrote You shouldn't take it personally foodchain, unless you have direct experience of the ins and outs of the academic fraternity (post-grad) you simply won't be able to obtain an informed opinion. I started a thread a while ago, about which branch I should be tackling in the future (physics under-grad at the moment) and I realized how little I knew, and what was expected in the field. This hasn't put me off by any means, but if you're going to ask questions about whether certain fields of science are influenced by corruption, I would say it's almost impossible to make any conclusions until you get to the level Ben the Man is talking about i.e the level where you're making contributions to the field. Science as it stands alone is obviously not corrupt, and if people want to claim science has other agendas, then their wrong. If people want to take the opinions of people such as Richard Dawkins, or Lee Smolin (as mentioned earlier) as gospel, well, that's their problem. The only way you're truly going to see if certain fields have been influenced by corruption is being part of that field. Transdecimal, what examples do you have that the field of physics, is out to make profit ?

It's a poor article... 'panspermia – the theory that life began inside comets', panspermia is just the idea that life started due to intervention from something from space e.g amino acids from meteors / comets et.c, could be a candidate, but it's one of those open to interpretation terms, and certainly not specific to the interior of comets. As Bluenoise pointed out, there is no renewable energy source on comets, even Thermophiles, that are a candidate as the first organisms on Earth, and would of hardly felt a speck of sunlight, need the hot vents found deep in the oceans to survive. I think the article is implying that it's more likely (although 10^24 more likely ?!?) that some of the building blocks of life would of come from the collisions of comets on Earth, rather than solely Earth itself.

This is a short and sweet one...I was over a friends house, and a boyfriend of one of the girls we knew at the time was there, anyway, he was asked to turn the kettle 'on' to make some tea. Five minutes later, we hear 'you forgot to turn the kettle on' in which his response was...'oh, sorry, I thought it said no' I kid you not.

Physics, though my degree is part time, so my knowledge can be cursory at times (cramming in some subjects, so having to recap quite a lot) but this is my main field of interest.

There was a thread a while back where we were asked to share 'our stupidest moment.' In a similar vein, this is to share those situations where somebody else has displayed a moment of profound stupidity, they could be a work colleague, friend or family member, or anyone really...that warrant a Please no quotes from here, this is for situations outside of SFN. To start off, this happend when I was much younger, and it had been snowing heavily, which is quite rare where I live. So naturally we wanted to make the most of it. So we found a steep hill on a housing estate, near a friends house, and were sledging down on tea trays, sometimes ending up in a heap at the bottom. We noticed a lot of curtain twitching from the house at the bottom of the hill. We carried on regardless, until ten minutes later, a woman with arms crossed was staring at us from the doorway of the house. We took this as a sign to move on, and went back to my friends' for warm drinks. When we got in, my friends Mum said 'you boys have just been on the local radio station'...'how come' we said, 'apparently you're ruining the snow.'

Eaxctly, it's really down to the individual / dose et.c (active at 25 microgrammes) it only takes a little (putting it mildly) for it to take effect, and the effect has a long duration, up to 12 hours...so you can understand why it would cause problems. I actually know a number of people that have 'dabbled' as it were, but none have reported flashbacks, but I certainly don't deny that they occur. I slao didn't say it was 'harmless', but there was no evidence for harmful effects...I should of said physical effects, so sorry about that. Thanks, I'll have a look. The only problem I have with the drug laws, is that they simply haven’t worked, but that's a different debate (I'll get a link to the politics thread where I discussed this issue)...and no it wasn't me that mentioned the US government’s data on drugs. Cannabis, maybe re-classified again in the UK, because of recent correlations with its use and schizophrenia, but personally I think that's down to the cannabis that's available now, having such high THC values due to hybridization of plants...though that's just my correlation, and I don't have any evidence to support this. EDIT: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25718&page=2 here's the link to the thread in politics, not sure if you've read it or not.

Sorry I missed your response NLN, thanks for the link, interesting that apes have almost symmetrical brains, not sure what that says about ambidextrous people

I think you mean...'could' be extremely bad for you. Not that I'm advocating it's use, but citations please...did it not occur to you that there are also many that have used it and are perfectly healthy, note, somebody taking LSD, enjoying themself, and going to work the next day is hardly newsworthy.

Not quite, but you're heading on the right track. I think you're jumping in at the deep end with relativity, and perhaps it would be more beneficial to understand some basics...however, please don't be put off by this, it's quick to learn, and you'll see that harder areas of physics are easier to understand if you have a foundation to build on and refer to. So I guess forget relativity for the time being, we can get back to that later. Let's clear up your area of inquiry, you're interested in physics...which is 'the study of motion.' So it'll be best to start with what we're dealing with here... Now, try and think of any object that isn't in motion...you may think of your keyboard as 'not moving', but your keyboard is traveling around the Sun, on Earth at roughly 30 kilometers a second, and the atoms that your keyboard is made of, are all jostling around (although you can't see this.) So it's fair to say that 'everything' is in motion, and already we have a 'fundamental' of physics. Another point to remember, is that the attributes of motion, for example speed, mass, force et.c are related. This is important to note, so when Cap'n says 'the faster you travel, the more mass you have, and therefore the more energy it takes to go faster.' You can see mass, energy and speed are related with each other...so of course time is related, but lets not worry about that just yet. As I suggested in another post, the best way to appreciate and 'get used to' these ideas, is to start with Newtonian Mechanics. I can't stress enough, that, if you don't understand Newtonian Mechanics, you will not even begin to understand relativity. So start at this level, and ask questions around this area, the rest will make sense as you progress. I hope the above wasn't patronizing in any way, you're clearly curious about physics, and I hope you stick around so we can help better your understanding of the subject.

Which of course includes Severian

Why do the most absurb OP's spark up the most discussion on here ? EDIT: However in response to the above post...if the discrimination is plain bigotry, with no valid reason for hatred towards said group, then obviously they're both as bad as each other.