Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eise last won the day on September 20

Eise had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

243 Beacon of Hope

About Eise

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    the old world
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics, Astronomy
  • Biography
    University degree philosophy, subsidary subject physics
  • Occupation
    Database administrator, a bit of Linux too

Recent Profile Visitors

5734 profile views
  1. dreams

    Uih.. it is a long time ago. I interpreted the phenomena as the possibility of dying: my heart beating strongly, and not being able to move. Maybe (but now I am already interpreting) I did not breath when I woke up, realised that after a while, and then started breathing consciously. I do not remember pain. Sorry I can't tell more. It is about 25 years ago.
  2. You have a tendency to spoil the jokes of others...
  3. Perfection in Nature and Frank Sinatra

    So obviously Darwin did not mean that... Did you find the context already in Darwin's work? I offered you the a possible correct context, and I assume this is what Darwin meant. OK, good you retracted this. You cannot create meaningful concepts by just gluing a few words together. I can talk about to the 4th angle of a triangle, but I do not even need to look for triangles that could have a 4th angle, because the reference is empty, in this case the 'concept' is logically contradictory. On the other hand, the concept of 'unicorn' is not empty, but it highly depends if it has a real referent, not just an intentional, on how you define it. If you define it as 'a horse like creature with a silvery skin, and one long white, spirally formed horn that lies its head in the lap of a virgin' it is very clear that you can describe such an animal, but we know there are no real specimen of this animal. If you define it just as 'an animal with one horn on its head', then there are several animals that fit the description, e.g. the Indian rhinoceros. See, here my unicorn: Isn't it a beauty? The concept of a 'perfect thing' is that perfection is relative to some ideal, i.e. it is related to our aims and values. @Strange gave a few examples (I would add that the perfect mosquito also does not buzz...). See e.g. some criticisms on the ontological proof of God's existence of Anselm.
  4. Perfection in Nature and Frank Sinatra

    Yes, it is if you try to apply it on a paradoxical situation with perfect gazelles and lions. But if you apply it to the effectivity of animal bodies it makes perfect sense: they could have designed better. So while I follow your argument, it is based on the idea that such things as perfect gazelles and lions make any sense. But they already don't make any sense in themselves, the concepts of perfect gazelles and lions are empty. So you can prove everything. So what the fuzz? What do think you gain by this argument? Show that evolution is conceptually not sound? Maybe you should lookup Darwin's remark in context, to see what he is talking about.
  5. Perfection in Nature and Frank Sinatra

    It lies in 'perfect'. Sorry, I just see this as a kind of language joke, like the question if an almighty god can create a stone that he cannot lift. And as I said, Darwin's remark makes only sense to me talking about the 'design' of species, not about 'perfect gazelles' or 'perfect lions'. Introducing meaningless terms to create a paradox seems not very useful to me. In the context of the design of species, the remark of Darwin makes perfectly sense; your context however does not even make sense in itself.
  6. Perfection in Nature and Frank Sinatra

    I think you are applying the criterion of 'perfectness' on the wrong level. It is not between different species: in your example of the gazelles and the lions we see a continuous 'arms-race'. But animal bodies, how greatly adapted they might be, have some 'design errors'. E.g. the placement of our trachea and the oesophagus, which has the risk of suffocation when eating. There is an evolutionary explanation for it, but as a design from scratch, it should never have been made like this.
  7. dreams

    Also a good suggestion. But when Sakura does not react, we will never know.
  8. dreams

    I do not think this is a philosophical topic, I would say it is psychological. But whatever. This sounds very much like sleep paralysis. I have had such episodes twice. The first time was during a big milestone in my life: moving from the Netherlands to Switzerland, so to speak leave my whole life until then behind. During the night I woke up felt my heart beating, and could not move. I thought I was dying. Then I noticed that I could steer just one thing: my breath. I started to breath consciously and intensively. On doing that, I returned to my 'normal mode'. I could move again, and all the fears blew away. A second time, many years later, I recognised the feelings, and started breathing immediately. And so the bad feelings vanished pretty quickly. Do these things (my experiences and the Wikipedia article) sound familiar? Please let us know.
  9. Only one miss, and I can really not care: "The Large Hadron Collider at CERN uses 1.3 terawatt hours of electricity annually. That’s equivalent to:"
  10. What is movement?

    Ups... Yes, of course. Slip of the mind...
  11. Hijack from What is movement?

    I did. But it is not my decision. And you know me. I have driven you to despair at CFI, so that you started deleting your posts about relativity there. Then we agree... I think the OP is a serious question, it needs a serious answer. At least I and Markus tried.
  12. Hijack from What is movement?

    I have no authoritative power on any forum. I am just a member here, as you are. So I have not hidden anything. On this forum your 'Nobelprice winning' posting about an error in special relativity was moved to 'Speculations' (not to trash): Einstein was wrong: My Theory of Relativity (you see, it is still there, it is not hidden at all). I was not even a member of this forum those days. You also presented your 'Einstein was wrong' at CFI, and I took the task of debunking your ideas, because there was no physicist at all there. And then it was you who started deleting your postings. And for the record: I also was just a member there. No 'authoritative power'. But for one thing I have to thank you: I got to learn about this forum because at CFI you referred to it, and after a while I became a member here.
  13. Hijack from What is movement?

    Remembers me of the bard in Asterix, Cacafonix: he himself thinks his singing is great, all the other greatly appreciate when he keeps his mouth shut. As answers on good questions, like the OP, should be according to established science, I reported your postings to shift them into 'Speculations'.
  14. Hijack from What is movement?

    Oh no, not again, Scott. Yes, theoretical physicists are so stupid... .
  15. 12 I was wrong on Q15: The 'M' of 'M87' brought me on the wrong track. Charles Messier himself could never have seen a black hole, so it must be a nebula or a galaxy. So in a certain sense the question is wrong: M87 is a galaxy, not a black hole. On Q9 I did not expect so many planets especially in the Goldilocks zone And Q6, I expected that it had to be farther away, the Lagrange points of the earth orbiting the sun, but obviously they are closer than I thought.