Charles 3781

The thing is this. If you truly consider that all languages are equal, that must mean you think that the Japanese language is just as good as the English language. Therefore, why don't you suggest that we conduct future discourse on this forum in Japanese? Hai?

Sinclair Basic is very good.

Do you think the "photograph" of the "Black Hole " is real?

Honey, you found that the English language has more words than any other language in the known Universe. Admit it!

Personally, I haven't reproduced a single off-spring, as I preferred other pursuits Well that's me done then. I haven't produced any off-spring. No reproductive success whatsoever. How have you done?

ran away

Do you think that, in the end, we'll have to let the virus run its course. Despite all our attempts to fend it off with our hand-sanitizers, masks, and social distancing. The virus will kill off the weak people. The strong people will survive. Isn't that how it works, in a Darwinian world?

So what language is it?

Strange, your post is sophistry!

Yeah - you couldn't come up with an answer!

Allover, you're making some interesting points. About the black and white dreams. These are not the natural way that we dream. Our eyes are adapted for colour vision. This colour vision is supplied to our brain. Which records the vision in memory. In full colour. And we see that vision in our dreams To prove this, think of something you've seen in the past. Perhaps a person, or a place. See it - now - in your mind's eye. Whatever you see in your mind's eye - I bet it's in colour. Not in black and white! Your memory records the colours. Seeing things in black and white has been a temporary thing caused by past lack of technicolor on screens.

What would happen, do you think, if a black hole came into close contact with a white hole. Would they mutually annihilate, without any outward release of energy. Each hole internally cancelling the other one out. Or would there be a stupendous outward burst of of energy. Perhaps released in the form of "dark matter"?

Has the English language got a larger vocabulary than any other language? Please cite another language with a larger vocabulary.

Dreaming in black and and white is probably a temporary phenomenon . Caused by the black and white televisions that we used to be continually exposed to, when of a certain age. I mean, our human eyes perceive colours. Therefore our perceptions in dreams should also be in colours. To confirm this, please try remembering any colours in a dream, on waking up.

Thanks Studiot for your courteous reply. Or are you taking the pass? It doesn't matter. I have read loads and loads of books about Quantum Theory , Spacetime curvature, and all the rest. As a result, I have come to this conclusion: Nobody really knows what the heck it's all about.

I've no idea what "the curvature of spacetime" means. Nor, I suspect does anyone. But - Einstein said it. So will you "bow the knee"? You're absolutely right. The English language is the most rational, and sophisticated, medium of linguistic communication ever devised. I mean, can you imagine this forum being conducted in French. What would that be like! Is it any any wonder that almost all major scientific advances have been achieved by speakers of English.

Well perhaps. But we've had 2,000 years of philosophers. Like Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle analysed ideas. He came up with the conclusion that everything below the Moon is made of four elements: 1. Earth 2. Air 3. Fire 4.Water And everything above the Moon is made of a luminous 5th element. This was so ridiculous, that it got protested against even by contemporary Ancient Greek scholars. Unfortunately, their voices were drowned by Aristotle's philosophical followers, who established a reign of scientific terror that lasted 1,500 years. Isn't that what philosophers are. They can't do maths, don't know anything useful. They just waffle and bluff. Or have they any redeeming features.

How would you define someone who claims to be a "Philosopher? Is it someone who has big ideas, and would really like to be a Physicist. But can't do the maths.

Thanks Markus. I think you're a bit hard on Aristotle. He did the best he could. But he lived in an Ancient Greek world without telescopes. So he can't really be blamed for espousing "circular" orbits. Even Copernicus and Galileo, 1500 years later, concurred in the assumption of circularity in planetary orbits. One can see why - the circle is symmetrically neater than Kepler's unexplained lop-sided ellipses. Aristotle's biggest bloomer was claiming that the Earth and the Heavens were made of different stuff. As for Relativity Theory, has there been any practical test of it? I don't mean measuring the masses of particles in the LHC. In that machine, particle masses are calculated by employing Relativity theory. So the results are bound to agree with the theory. What I mean is, have any experiments been conducted with a rocket-ship accelerating away at near light-speed from the Earth, looping round Alpha Centauri, then coming back. And the crew getting out years younger than they should be. Well obviously not. In the present state of our technology we can't do it. So isn't the idea just theory. Where's the experimental verification?

Thanks swansont. You are always pithy. But can "space" really "expand". What does the word "space" actually mean? Is "space" an actual physical "thing" - in the same sense that stars and planets are physical "things" . The nouns "star" and "planet" denote actual, solid, physical 3-dimensional objects. Which have definite, measurable, and constant dimensions and mass. So they are clearly "things". But the noun "space" just seems to be an abstract word. A kind of shorthand for: "the separation between objects". Thus we can say: " Object A is separated from Object B by 1 metre" . Or we can say: "There's a space of 1 metre between Object A and Object B". But does this replacement of "is separated from" by "a space between", make "Space" into a thing?

Very perceptive post.

Do you consider Einstein to be correct? He claimed that the speed of light is invariable. Where's the evidence for that? Don't our telescopes show show galaxies flying apart at many times the speed of light? The thing is, you shouldn't get too fixated on an "authority figure" like Einstein. These "authority figures" have held up the progress of science in the past. Like Aristotle. He said that the planets must revolve in perfect circles. They don't - they revolve in ellipses. But because Aristotle was an authority figure, he delayed the progress of astronomy for a thousand years. Einstein looks like another authority figure - he says nothing can exceed the speed of light. How does he know?

Most people don't commit crimes. The criminals who do it, have bad genes. These genes could be eliminated by executing the criminals before they can reproduce. In that way, we could arrive at a law-abiding society. Isn't that a sensible idea?

If the ship underwent contraction as it approached light-speed, wouldn't the hydrogen atoms inside the ship get so squeezed together, that they underwent nuclear fusion, and blew the ship apart in a gigantic nuclear explosion?

Thanks Enthalpy. You show very clearly, the scientific principles which ought to influence the design of musical instruments, so that they work most effectively. Isn't it a pity that traditional instruments haven't been designed along these scientific lines. Rather, the instruments seem to have evolved in a kind of haphazard way. For example, we have, nowadays, all kinds of "wind" instruments, such as the trumpet , bugle, flute, clarinet and recorder. And stringed instruments like the banjo, violin, cello, and double bass. Do we need all these different instruments? Couldn't they be scientifically reduced to a single all -purpose instrument . Just as past key-board instruments like the clavichord and harpsichord, have been perfected into the modern piano?