Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/06/19 in all areas

  1. Funny how some people perceive offence where there may be none. Maybe you should have been more aware of your audience Ten oz .
    2 points
  2. Not bad. For the first time I've given you a rep-point, for at least a momentary glimpse of light. I think this is wrong. To contrast it with religion: religion is a belief system, spirituality isn't. Spirituality is more a stance one takes to what one thinks reality is. Therefore one finds spirituality in all kinds of world views: theistic (e.g. mysticism in Christianity or Islam) , non-theistic (e.g. in Buddhism), and yes, even in scientific world views. So this is very wrong: First, 'concepts' cannot be demonstrated. At most concepts can turn up to be useful to describe nature. Second, spirituality, as described above, is a description of the kind of relation you strive for to what you think is real, be it God, ultimate reality, or life just as you experience it. Not in any meaningful sense. Spirituality does not explain reality. It strives for, as your first statement says, to feel the connection with what one supposes to be real. Yes, feeling connected gives a feeling of meaning. That is in my opinion one of the main motivations behind spirituality. And no, it does not explain anything, so it is a category error to compare it with scientific evidence. Now you are mixing up spirituality with intuition. Nobody knows. You must realise that we evolved from previous natural species that could not talk, and so definitely had very different minds than we have now. By using language to literally describe things in nature did not arise from one moment to the other. So I assume originally religion and spirituality were not invented by people, but slowly emerged from more primitive forms of consciousness.
    2 points
  3. Wait a minute. Are you actually implying that hearing how others think and feel might actually impact our own psychology? Huh, what a unique idea (sarcasm). At the very least hearing others out might help navigate the minefield MigL referenced.
    2 points
  4. That is just as irrational and unscientific as belief in any other deity. I suppose a case could be made for a Stupid Designer...
    1 point
  5. Cookies? No one said there would be cookies!
    1 point
  6. Is this the problem then? Do you think making a sexist remark makes you a sexist? I think you need to practice the bad habit regularly before you're considered that as a whole. You've lied before, but I wouldn't classify you as a liar (the way I do with Trump). I actually think this is why many guys defend bad behavior. They don't want a mistake to label them, but what's really important here is that the language needs to stop being needlessly offensive.
    1 point
  7. Even the deaf percussionist Evelyn Glennie says that he said "woman". She is a master lip-reader. I'm good but she's awesome.
    1 point
  8. Rotate the cylinder and see if the pattern changes. Change the angle of reflection and see how the pattern changes. Or not reflect the light at all - expand it with a lens and see what the pattern looks like.
    1 point
  9. To an individual how is this not true. It you are legitimately offended by something who am I or anyone else to say that you should not be? If one cares about you personally or professionally they should be mindful of what things offend you.
    1 point
  10. What? There are a number of replies to you, most of which you seem to have ignored. I don't see any kind of math, which was requested of you. Irrefutable? Hardly. There's not enough information here to actually know what's going on, so it's evidence of nothing. There's nothing to refute. Science requires rigor, which is why blurry snapshots of bigfoot do not constitute conclusive evidence. The Faraday effect takes place in a material, where the photons interact. It is not a direct interaction with the field. I pointed this out to you some time ago. No, not true. Laser light can often be collimated pretty well, but the coherence does not cause the collimation. Laser diodes are famous for their beam divergence; they require collimation lenses The spreading is not the issue. Lasers being monochromatic is a very useful quality that makes them quite useful. There's no contradiction here. That's funny. I recall a quite logical explanation for single- and double-slit interference using this concept. And one can derive the single slit equation from that description http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys222core/modules/m9/diffraction.htm If this were true than you should be able to come up with an equation for interference which depends on the material, and how it interacts with the light. Do you have such an equation? Citation needed. Where is that justification used to explain diffraction? Um, what? Interpretations of QM do not give rise to different equations being correct in QM. It's a matter of how one understands the equations. If they repel, why do you get interference pattern? They should have a new trajectory, and the light's path will depend on where the repulsion took place. Where is your model which predicts the interference pattern, based on repulsion? Are your hands tired from waving them so much? Appeal to ridicule is not a valid argument. No, that's not what QM says about entanglement. And your explanation is contradicted by experiment, which chows that the particles are in an undetermined state until measured. How about you address the fundamental flaws in your hypothesis, and develop a mathematical model, before proceeding to "further discussion"
    1 point
  11. good advice Phi. Ernest Hemingway — 'There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.'
    1 point
  12. You're welcome! We all want to improve ourselves, to learn more and gain in wisdom and experience. We all have to build on what's already there, adding to ourselves, so stop thinking about it as if you're "fixing" yourself. Work on adding to your positive experiences in life. There are processes you need to figure out that let you be yourself, and hopefully realize "you" aren't the problem. The problem is your perspective on "you" is overly harsh and judgemental, and sometimes that's like wearing a sign that says, "I'm not worthy". It can push people away who wanted to get to know you.
    1 point
  13. Maybe I should have been clearer, INow… By continuing to flog this dead horse we are not addressing the issue of inequality of the sexes. The OP is about whether J Corbyn's whispered comment was sexist or not. Let's not jump to the conclusion that, because sexism does exists, the comment must have been sexist.
    1 point
  14. While the "cat in the box' interpretation has its flaws, I think Carrock was specifically discussing which interaction collapses the wave function. And how they are all suitable ( but flawed ); whether it's the radioactive decay, opening the inner box, or the outer box.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.