-
Posts
25528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
133
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Strange
-
What do you mean by "coordinates that exist in reality"? Do numbers "exist in reality"? An irrational value has just as much "reality" as 3 or 22/7 or any other number. So, at some point between 3 and 4 in "coordinates that exist in reality" you'll find Pi.
-
Well, I guess that is a good demonstration of the importance we should place on opinions that are not based on any sort of evidence or rational thought. Or, to put it another way: no.
-
On the other hand, you could say: "here is a new idea I thought of and here is the evidence that supports it [link to experimental or observational evidence]". Just saying: "here is a new idea I thought of and it must be correct because I thought of it and no one else did and I'm really clever and original and everything" is just not very compelling.
-
Science, religion, racism, technology, politics...are evolutionary traits
Strange replied to Itoero's topic in Speculations
I'll give you that. Especially as they actually make the tools in some cases (rather than just using a stick or a rock they have found). I would like to see some evidence for that. 1. That distrust of other species is based on bad experience (rather than learned from others or being innate). 2. That distrust of other species in animals is connected with in/out group behaviour within the human species. 3. That ingroup/outgroup behaviour in humans is caused by a bad experience with a member of (what becomes) the outgroup 4. That this causes racism. (Actually, I would give you that one if it hadn't been built on such a precarious pyramid) I would really need evidence of that. I'm not sure I even know what that means. So I would some explanation as well as justification. Science is a process of developing hypotheses and testing them against the world by means of experiment. Is there any evidence that other animals do that? Animals that live in groups sometimes have no hierarchy ... which leads to anarchy. Nah. What the previous two posters said. -
Oh, gosh. An original thinker. I assume that means you just make stuff up. Next you will be telling us proudly that you think outside the box. Well, of course, Einstein did cite references in his work. And he did cite evidence that supported his theories. For example, the papers for which he got the Nobel Prize (such as, Theorie der Lichterzeugung und Lichtabsorption) references Maxwell, Planck and others, and was specifically written to explain observed behaviour. So solidly based on existing science and observational evidence. Not just making stuff up. Similarly, his papers on relativity also referenced the work of Maxwell (from which it is largely derived) and observational evidence. For example, in Erklärung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie he calculated the anomalous precession of Mercury and the bending of light by gravity (which was later confirmed by experiment). 1. I didn't express a belief either way. I was asking you to support the claims you are making. 2. WTF? What on Earth does your mother's maiden name (and the fact I don't have clue or give a sh*t) have to do with you supporting your claims? Really? So all those peer-reviewed experiments in psychology, neuroloscience, biochemistry, etc are all just a pack of fairy stories? Bute then ... ... you link to a story about a scientist who has published many evidence-based papers, articles and books about neuroscience. Despite that fact that no such person exists, according to you. Extraordinary.
-
A torus is flat. That is one of the examples in the article. I agree, flatness by itself doesn't tell us whether the universe is finite or infinite. We also need to know the topology. I suspect that this will always be an unanswerable question (because the information to answer it lies outside the observable universe). But it may be that a future replacement for GR (perhaps by incorporating quantum theory) will tell us more....
-
Climate change: Fresh doubt over global warming 'pause'
Strange replied to StringJunky's topic in Science News
That is why I hate it so much, despite their evil agenda they manage to insinuate their way into so many homes. -
This is pretty incoherent. Where does the hypocrisy come in? Where does this order come from? I heave never heard of it before. And what does it have to do with attitudes towards hermaphrodites? Who is "you" in this sentence? Americans? Atheists? Hermaphrodites? And why would this "you" be considered at a par with hermaphrodites? A few do. Most don't. Most people don't commit crimes (and certainly not heinous ones). Most people who do are caught and punished. So what people and what crimes are you referring to? What does that mean? What is a "mathematically perfect bastard"? Plan what? Hide from what? And what does it have to do with hermaphroditism? Why would an atheist expect anyone to follow a religion? And why hermaphrodites in particular? And this started out as an attack on "most Americans" but most Americans are not atheists. So this doesn't make much sense. To cut it short: what are you talking about? (Maybe try again when you have sobered up.)
-
That is a novel definition of "free will" (or at least, not one I have come across before). However, I would still like some evidence that conscious mind is subservient to the subconscious. So far, you have only presented assertions and opinions. Perhaps you could back up your apparent expertise with evidence? Been there. Done that. At least twice. (For example, I had a food phobia when I was young. I decided it was getting in the way of life so I started eating the food in question. And delicious it is too.) How about presenting some. Preferably in the form of references to scientific papers, rather than anecdotes. Citation needed. Only if it includes references to the relevant science. I am not particularly interested in your opinions (however confidently expressed).
-
First, welcome to the forum. I am glad to see you are interested in science and have some imaginative ideas. [i will repeat the comments I made in the other thread, for the benefit of anyone who didn't see that.] Well, mass and energy are equivalent. So energy can be converted into mass. For example, a photon can turn into an electron and a positron. Or, more significantly, nearly all the mass of protons and neutrons comes from the energy holding them together, not from the mass of the quarks they are made of. That is not how the big bang model works. Your description sounds like the is this "quantum bubble" in empty space. In the big bang model, instead, space has always been completely (and homogeneously) full of matter and energy. But space has expanded so that the matter and energy has cooled over time. There is no way for particles (with or without mass) to move faster than light. But mass and energy are equivalent so the energy of a system contributes to its gravitation. I don't know what "motion mass" is. But it really isn't that simple.
-
Fair point. We can see individual supernova in distant galaxies because they emit so much light. The most distant observed was at z=3.8993 (something like 12 billion light years, I think). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1000%2B0216 But when I said we can see stars in all directions, I wasn't thinking of individual stars. There are trees as far as I can see when I look out of my window. But I can only see a few individual trees. The rest just make up various woods and copses. I still think I am seeing trees when I see a large green mass. Similarly, I still think we are seeing stars when all we see is a small blob which is a galaxy.
-
It isn't anything to do with authority or followers, it is about EVIDENCE. You are the one relying on faith instead of knowledge.
-
Yes, there are VR reproductions of buildings, landscapes and other things.
-
Really. Yes. Your ignorance and incredulity do not change the facts. Chance can create new genetic material. That new genetic material may or may not produce new features. Those new features may or may not result in a new species (immediately or by accumulation of such changes over time). Why? We know there are genetic mechanisms that can do this. Except we do see new species appearing - in the past and today. You can keep repeating the lie or you can open your mind and learn about the world around you. Do you think your god is proud of you being so stubbornly ignorant and preferring your opinions to the reality of his creation?
-
Define "kind". As we have historical and genetic evidence of the emergence of species from common ancestors, and we see new species forming today, your statement is obviously false. As you have been told this previously, this makes your false statement a deliberate lie.
-
Forgetting for a moment the prediction aspects, there is a sense in which probability is (or can be) simply a reflection of our knowledge about the world. Imagine you flip a coin and catch it without looking at it. Now you and your friend both know the odds of it being heads are 50:50. But if you look at the coin, the probability for you changes to 0 or 1. But for your friend it is still 0.5.
-
I have no idea if that is the case or not. But if it is, there are two possible explanations that I can think of: 1. It is a coincidence: some galaxy/hurricane spirals match that ratio, while others have ratios of 1.2, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 ... 2. The underlying physics of density waves (in galaxies) or velocities (in hurricanes) cause them to approximate a logarithmic spiral. Note that the underlying cause is not "biological" but is simply related to growth (see how the Fibonacci series is defined). So there could be some truth in possibility 2. I have no idea. More here: http://goldenratiomyth.weebly.com/the-logarithmic-spiral.html
-
That is exactly what I said in post 8: we can measure the curvature. (We cannot measure something like the radius, as you suggested before.) As far as we can tell it is flat. This suggests that universe is very large and possibly infinite. From: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe/
-
No, that is your job.
-
And that we can observe. OK, so we observe it happening in the past. But that is true for many things. You might as well deny that the city of Uruk existed because all we have are archeological records. And we do observe new species being created today, so we know the mechanisms can create new species.
-
The ratio itself cannot change as it is defined mathematically. Where we see the ratio in nature, it is only ever very approximate. For example, the spirals of sunflower seeds may have numbers of seeds close to numbers in the fibonacci series, but not necessarily exact. And the ratio between numbers in the Fibonacci series only approximates Phi, anyway (it gets closer for larger numbers). Or you could look at spiral sheets, but the growth rates vary from year to year, so it only approximates a geometric spiral in the first place. These variations could lead to a wide range of measured values for the "golden ratio" (growth rate).
-
First, welcome to the forum. I am glad to see you are interested in science and have some imaginative ideas. But ... Well, mass and energy are equivalent. So energy can be converted into mass. For example, a photon can turn into an electron and a positron. Or, more significantly, nearly all the mass of protons and neutrons comes from the energy holding them together, not from the mass of the quarks they are made of. That is not how the big bang model works. Your description sounds like the is this "quantum bubble" in empty space. In the big bang model, instead, space has always been completely (and homogeneously) full of matter and energy. But space has expanded so that the matter and energy has cooled over time. There is no way for particles (with or without mass) to move faster than light. But mass and energy are equivalent so the energy of a system contributes to its gravitation. I don't know what "motion mass" is. But it really isn't that simple.
-
This kind of wilful ignorance is very depressing. Like the more general problem of "alternative facts" and "post truth", it makes me despair for human nature.
-
As the universe is many times larger than the observable universe then it would never be possible to make any such measurement (the nearest you can do is measure things like the (local) curvature. The rate of spatial expansion (which we can measure) has nothing to do with whether the universe is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded.
-
SPECIFICALLY, what animals reside exclusively in the atmosphere?
Strange replied to SFNQuestions's topic in Biology
Without a reference to these claims, it is hard to know what (exactly) you are referring to. But here is one paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/7/2575 And another: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19643890 And a few thousand more here: https://scholar.google.it/scholar?q=bacteria+upper+atmosphere