Marshalscienceguy

I am not complaining or anything but sometimes it stops me after voting up so many times. Is that normal? Like is there a limit to how many people you can up in a day?

This is my first post on the forum, I have done a quick search regarding this and can't find a previous post on the forum so I apologise if its a repost.

 

My point I would wish to discuss here is that religion is the adult form of a of a blanket or a mobile above a child's head. It's a transparent way to comfort people who are scared of the unknown or the unbearable.

 

If a child was in bed before he knew they never existed they always believed there were monsters in their closet or under their bed, they are told that say, a blanket, will keep them away and of course they believe it and it keeps them safe when really it doesn't in actual fact the problem just wasn't a threat.

 

It is similar with religion if someone is scared of death they turn to religion to give them illusions of grandeur that there is an afterlife which will grant them their wildest dreams when, more than likely they will just be dead and decomposing.

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that something which is based on astronomy and star signs originally (I will discuss the way in which it is based on this if anyone wishes to get into it) is capable of saving their life or giving them everything beyond their wildest dreams.

 

I'm all for people being comfortable and finding a way to cope with death, but that's all religion is and ever will be. A coping mechanism.

 

We could find a better idea one day that possibly doesn't fuel war and chaos throughout the globe due to conflicting ideas of equally ludicrous beliefs.

 

Discuss.

I think someone figured out people are not always willing to be good people without fear of something bad happening for doing bad. This is the same reason we have a law book for the government because we know people are not always going to be genuine. I believe it was an attempt to counter this. Now if it was really a message of god is another matter but I do believe this was the intention.Now morals are subjective so peoples idea of whats bad seems to vary from person to person. This is affected by culture and tradition and personal beliefs created on experience. Why you cant really Subjectively prove why your morals are correct because everyone has different morals. The bible follows the same principle as mom or dad saying "Sit down and behave or I will hit you/beat you/spank you/ground you". Why God is often refereed to as "The Father". Since Father knows best. Though really without some sense of order we would have chaos. So even if you get rid of the bible some sort of system of checks and balances will always exist. Since someone is always going to try and keep some kind of structure. I do believe its a means of getting people to behave but so is the law. Instead of crime the bible has sins and the sins warrant punishments depending on your crime. Just like crime get you different punishments depending on what you do.

Velociraptors had eyes at the sides of their heads right?

 

If that's the case, and since it had binocular vision, could this dinosaur see better or worse than humans?

That is not what determines if they see better. It just determines what range of vision they have. However to answer your question yes they do believe that the placement of the eyes in these positions is suppose to better aid them. Vs the having eyes in the front of the head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

To use an old saying - it's good to have an open mind, but don't open it so far that your brain falls out.

 

While imagination and creativity are essential components of science, those new ideas should build on existing knowledge rather than rejecting or ignoring it. If something in a movie blatantly contradicts everything we know about a subject, maintaining the idea that it is somehow plausible just because imagination, is somewhat fruitless.

I agree completely. Reality has rules that we must follow in order to produce things. Now some ideas just might not work. It doesn't mean we can write off everything though. A cyborg seems a little more plausible than a fairy born when babies laughs.

 

I think you're vastly over-generalizing.

 

However, I do think that there is an issue at play here, in general. Credulity/incredulity. Some people are too credulous at things they see and hear, not understanding or having experience at what's involved. That sounds like what you're talking about. The other side of the coin is the issue of not believing something unless that person can experience or understand it.

 

Either extreme is worrisome.

 

 

The actual technology in Star Trek is somewhat nebulous, but no, they aren't. Quantum teleportation is not the same thing and Star Trek should not be mentioned in any other context when discussing it.

 

Since it's topical,

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/14945

This is debate I keep seeing. "Its in a movie so it can never happen". I just don't understand how any one can follow this thinking much less use it to discredit another persons argument and I see this argument a lot. I am not saying all movies are 100 percent fact but if there is a possibility presented in a film I don't think it should be ruled as a flat out lie automatically. The only reason people created inventions and advancements was the fact someone had enough of an imagination to see the possibilities and not settle for whats in front of us. Someone had to have the idea for any of this to happen.

I really do not understand this logic. Someone says because you saw it in a movie its impossible. People cant invent anything if they don't have an imagination so why does having an imagination make you a moron? People said "What if people could fly" and made airplanes. Does that make them idiots? Why do people believe that because it does not exist now it will never exist and anyone with an imagination is stupid? I really don't understand this logic at all. In Star trek they transported peoples particles to another location. They are currently working on this. So why is believing stuff in star trek could be possible one day a sign that you're a complete idiot and everyone needs to laugh at you?

Scientists are trying to figure out ways to save earth and to move to other planets if earth or earths atmosphere/orbit is ruined. If the magnetic field is created by our core we need to core to survive, we also are effected by the sun and the moon. The moon effects the currents and the sun gives us heat that we need. Our atmosphere is what protects us from debree and getting too much heat from the sun. Beneath the atmosphere is weather. Weather is effected by a number of things including what lays under our crust. We cant remove the sun, we cant remove the magnetic field, you can always stop things like earthquakes. So why would we want to move to a planet that probably has worse natural disasters? We understand magnetism so why couldn't we create an artificial magnetic field? We could make a ship where we could not only live on the crust but we could live in the core as and mantel as well. We could even make the outside of the ship heat resistant so we dont have to worry about being blown up by the sun when it implodes. Now I am not saying we can do this all now but considering they are putting so much funding into finding alternative planets why not just fund making a new planet? We didn't have enough water in certain areas so we created irrigation. Why does the same rule not apply to this? We have to worry about Earthquakes, Tsunami, volcanoes, tornadoes and hurricanes. We keep trying to figure out ways to stop this why not just eliminate them all together?

They are looking for funding to start a company. Their video is interesting. Someone draws 3D shapes free hand instead of the drawing head being computer controlled. If they aren't too expensive, I'd like to play with one, but really do not have the artistic skill to afford one if they are expensive. Kids would go crazy with one, except the tip might burn them.

Wow, this looks really cool

Is there any scientific evidence that video games actually cause violence? Or is it just a nocebo, where people who believe bad video games will make them aggressive become violent when they play bad video games?

The issue with this idea is that there is too many factors in what causes a person to turn bad. There is some people that simply seem to be messed up from birth. Jeffrey dohmers parents divorced and he became a killer does that mean all children with divorce parents become killers? Also children have to deal with violence. That is part of growing up. We all have to deal with anger, sadness and heartache. Simply cutting them off and telling them Anger is not a normal emotion and they cant ever feel it is not healthy. If we shield children from this kind of stuff they wont know how to handle it when they do feel it actually happen.

I'm going to make this short. I've heard that the difference between introversion and extraversion lies in the activity going on inside the brain, that lower brain activity means one needs to socialize in order to be energized, while higher brain activity means one gets tired out by over stimulation if they socialize too much. To me, the explanation for extraversion (having low brain activity and needing to socialize in order to be energized) sounds as though it would fit the description of some, if not many ADHD cases if the lower brain activity was more significant. What do you think?

I heard the oppisate. People with high brain activity are going to be more active since they always need to keep busy. People that have low brain activity are more mellow. People with a lot of activity are going to be bored very quickly and easily distracted since they race from thought to thought. Where a person who does not think as much can be much more relaxed. I also read gifted people are going to be bored very quickly and very hyperactive since they just cant stop thinking and they notice things others might not notice.

How can we promote family values while maintaining the interest of wooing the opposite sex? I think virtual marriages are the solution. Partners can share their key genetic information like racial profile, sex, age, height, weight etc and an algorithm could create a virtual kid that the prospective parents can "adopt". The kid will actually be an artificial intelligence bot that responds to the stroke play (transactional) of the parents. They can watch the kid grow and those parents that do a good job could be rewarded by actually being introduced to each other. Virtual kids of other parents could be adopted by new virtual parents. That way parents can look after a child who gene pool does not necessarily match theirs.

 

How feasible and realistic is this? And does this promote good social mores?

So you want to replace all live children with artificial robot children? While this might fix the current over population issue for a short while if we stop having kids all together eventually everyone is going to die out unless you think of a way for the remaining people to live forever or to create actual artificial children. I don't really understand the point of your program.

I have no idea what the purpose of this kind of a thing would be.

 

I think you would have people sign up and use this service for entertainment or maybe to test their compatibility with certain mates, but the idea that this is somehow going to have any affect on mores and "family" values is likely very misplaced. The only way I would see this having any greater effect on the society is if this were required in order to have kids. Thankfully, there be absolutely no way to mandate this kind of procedure.

 

Furthermore, how are you going to define what makes a good parent? Scientists usually make terrible philosophers.

Many philosophers were scientists. Leonardo da vinci was considered a philosopher and a scientist.

Is Stockholm really that irrational? Stockholm Syndrome is something which happens when the captor bonds to their captor. This is considered irrational and not fully understood by psychologists. I don't think its really that irrational if you think about how people interact with other though. People if put in an eviorment will often create bonds with those around them. In situation of capture they are often cut off from anyone other than the captor and anyone the captor allows them to see. So what if this is human nature? What if these captured people are simply adapting? Making a social connection to the captor since that is the only hope of sociol interaction they can possibly hope to have? They says people are naturally social creatures and putting a person in solitary confinement has been proved to be mentally damaging. Given this information in a situation where a person is not allowed contact with anyone other than the captor themselves doesn't it make sense that they would create some type of bond with them? Perhaps this is simply a defense mechanism that the mind is doing to stop the person from completely losing their mind caused by isolation?

I was going to try and start a business of selling ice cream. I figured out where to get the permits and everything however having an issue figuring out how to store the ice cream. I was going to try normal ice in a chest but I was afraid it would melt too quickly. I was going to try adding Dry ice to the ice chest and I looked up a video saying you can do this in an ice chest if you put a barrier. However I would be planning to keep move any ice cream I don't sell back to the freezer for storage and leave the chest with dry ice in my garage. I read that if inhaled dry ice can make you suffocate. So is this a reasonably safe idea? Any advice?

"the fact that we CAN go past the speed of light"

 

Sorry: How?

 

Edit/ cross posted

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

There was research saying you can go faster than Light.

If this is true that would break the rule that "Nothing can go past the speed of light".

I found discussion online stating Einstein was really an idiot. A lot of this is saying the fact that we CAN go past the speed of light means that the idea that we could not means that Einstein was stupid or the fact he was a German means he was an idiot since all Germany cares about is destroying Jews. Even if his old Research and ideas are today proven incorrect does that necessarily mean hes a complete moron or just that we are improving on ideas he created?

Without OBVIOUS evidence ?

 

We are constantly looking for evidence of other life existing in nearby or further away places.

 

What happens if there indeed is further life forms , superior to the human race , far more developed , with skills both technically and intellectually far superior to us , who are " as we speak " , observing our human civilization , together with its current handling of the finite resources on our planet.

 

Should they make their presence known, keep secret , Or what . That is of course

 

IF THEY EXIST ? How could we find out , IF in fact they exist, and if so , have they anything to say?

 

Forget 'Bug eyed monsters ' I am talking about Superior beings ?

 

What might they look like? That is , if they did not want to shock us ?

 

Which I am sure if they are superior ...They would not want to shock us ?

 

Big Questions / Thoughts ?

 

Mike

Yes, I believe its possible.

If Antimatter hit a black-hole would it destroy the black hole or make it bigger? I know how Anti matter reacts to matter but how would this effect a black hole?

Some animals have been around hundreds of thousands of years before us, yet none have evolved to be as intelligent as humans. What makes us so sucessful in evolution?

I dont think its that we are so much better. Different creatures adapt in different ways. I think the thing about humans is that we evolved to be the most adaptable to all situations. So our main skill is adaptability where as most creatures evolve in a way that suits special situations. You will notice most creatures will have 1-3 special defined features. However humans have none of that. We are very balanced if you think about it. We have better eyes but not great eyes, we have decent hearing but not great hearing, we can run but we can also build muscle. The way humans are built we can build on any part of these features which makes us very adaptable. I think the adaptability is what puts humans on top but if you think about it there is a lot of animals in this world that could so easily kill a human.

As well as this we have done something most creatures have not done. We told nature we don't like your rules and we made our own. Instead of living in a hole we made in the ground we made mud and concrete houses. We did not have light all hours of the day so someone invented the light bulb and learned to harness electricity. Though even before that people used candles. Which is still telling mother nature "We don't want to play by your rules" and now they are able to make test tube babies. Part of the reason we are so far along is that we broke the rules. We told nature we don't care what rules you set in place we are going to do whatever we please. We defied the rules of nature and so we are far less limited than most of animals in the kingdom. Though again we could probably not do this if we were not built the way we are. It would be a lot more difficult if we had paws.

What level of physics do you already have and what level do you want to get to?

 

Well, difficult to suggest specific titles without knowing what level, as ajb says.

 

However on a more general note, although you are not studying a formal course at school (and presumably not going for an exam) school textbooks offer a balanced presentation of the subject at a common level so are better than targeted or single subject books. Popsci books in particular are designed to push a particular message. You often require combined input from several differnt parts of the subject to understand a point. For example to properly understand the working of your electric fire you need input from the mechanics and heat (thermodymics) branches of physics as well.

 

Since you are not following a formal course, you do not need the latest textbook, so you can pick up older editions or older books for very little from second hand sources. these will be perfectly adequate for your needs.

 

In a school environment you would also learn associated subjects (mathematics and perhaps chemistry) in parallel with physics, most physics books will assume this so will be deficient in this area.

If you looked at what tech colleges call "engineering science" you might find more useful material.

Engineering science is basically less mathematical physics with a smattering of chemistry and is more down to earth so easier to digest on one's own.

 

Good luck in your personal studies.

Not sure what level I am at. I learned most of the stuff I did researching it on my own. I know theory's, how matter and anti matter react to each other, what black holes and worm holes do, and how you get black holes and how this is all connected to stars and dieing stars and entanglement and how that is connected to the multi verse theory, Quantum leap, the different ideas about dimensions that either its 3 and the 4th being time or that planets and objects are simply bending the fabric of space around it and that is what gives the planets an orbit. I know the brain in the vat theory that we are brains in a jar and just hooked up to a computer. I am not sure what level that makes me.

There is a surprising lack of support for trolling in this thread.

 

There are many different types of trolls. Most of them are useless. Most of what passes as a "troll" nowadays is simply someone playing the part of: unsophisticated pot-stirrer, a relentless contrarian, a shock-jock, or an idiot.

 

The useful troll exists. I seen it! (anyone seen FYAD on SomethingAwful.com? extremely talented philosophy-trolls who attempt to repair idiocy) The useful troll is someone who (as was Kierkegaard) is skilled in "the art of taking away".A useful troll is a philosopher at heart, because only philosophers have this irrational, irrepressible urge to "fix" things. This useful troll will always choose her targets carefully.

 

What merit is there in belittling a cancer survivor? None, it's mean-spirited and unfunny. Conversely, what merit is there in belittling someone who, against overwhelming advice, attempted to live on a farm on his own in the middle of the Hawaiian jungle with no agricultural experience and grew sick drinking unfiltered water that pigs splash in, then complained about it to the very people who warned him? A lot. It's funny because it's his own damn fault, and if no one will belittle him, it is entirely possible that he may grow to think his own ineptitude was not to blame for his misfortune and never learn. Similarly, those who watch this episode unfold won't learn an important life lesson if someone does not humorously, obliquely and (most importantly) uniquely creatively humiliate this person.

 

It is essential to show people their missteps. If trolling is the only way to show a group of people how one ought to live, then it would be immoral NOT to troll.

 

That's a really limited definition. For example, what if a troll evaluates all potential targets and only seeks out bullies? Is a troll a bully for bullying bullies? Is it trolling to point out others mistakes in a humorous fashion? What is a polite troll? Your definition does nothing to address these important questions.

How do you know that a troll only cares for the disruption, no matter what? Have you ever trolled anyone? Have you never met a troll with a conscience? You're attacking a strawman, if I may say so.

Than you have made a terrible error. You do not troll a troll. That only makes it worse. Trolls thrive for attention and so you would be as they say "Feeding the trolls" and that is never a good thing.

If you wanted to learn physics and not going to school for it what are some good books to get?

there is this theory that we are all brains in a jar hooked up to a machine that is giving us dreams. However this also does not explain how we can have dreams if reality is too a dream. This argument if assumed true beats all other arguments. A valid argument is based on valid information and facts. The conclusion should be objective not subjective. Saying "I believe he is guilty because I hate him" is not a good argument in court. It is also not a good argument as to why this person needs to be convicted. However if we assume the brain in the vat theory is the ultimate truth we have just destroyed this concept. Since we have just made all objective material subjective. Meaning that we can no longer have intellectual debate or discussion since the entire premise it was built on has just been destroyed. However is it fair to assume this kind of thing automatically truth? Is there undeniable evidence that this is fact and if there is not is it fair to say its fact?

That works fine until children die because their parent's religion doesn't allow them to treat certain illnesses. Or a science teacher's belief causes a child to wrongly learn basic science. Or when a religious belief causes people to think they have the right to destroy nature, or that human's can't strongly effect the global ecosystems. Or various other ways that beliefs can have negative effects on people.

It is a crime to not get your child proper medical care. If you said "My child had cancer but I refuse to get him medical care since god will fix it eventually" it could be considered child abuse. This can also be brought up for things like not medicating a mentally ill child. If they determine your child needs to be medicated and you refuse to they could bring up a case against you stating its child abuse.

In the US they take 5%-15% off taxes for low income, Than the next up it goes 25%, and 30%. You also get a tax break if you have children, are a business(Business expense) or are married. So they do take a percentage out of your pay check automatically in the US and it goes to taxes.

I am delighted that finally an EU law will force phone manufacturers to provide a standardized charger that works with all phones. Earlier attempts with a letter of intent (.pdf warning), which was drafted in 2009, and was supposed to lead to a standardized charger by 2013, lead to absolutely nothing, since there were no consequences to a failure to comply. The new law may simply make it illegal to sell phones without standardized charger.

 

Nowadays, phone chargers can cost as much as 40 euro if a replacement is needed... which is quite a lot of money considering I have a drawer full of obsolete chargers.

 

I think this is a great example how you sometimes have to regulate a market, and not let the market regulate itself. Sometimes you need a stick, not a carrot. I applaud the EU for taking this initiative. Hopefully it will save us all some money, and resources in the future.

 

Perhaps I should have posted this in the news section, but I hope that some of you are going to attack the interferences of the EU so we can have a political debate about it.

I have noticed this with my phones. Whenever I lost a cord I can use an old cord for it. This is very convenient and I think its a lot less hassle than needing a specialized cord for all your electronic devices and all upgrades.