Jump to content

Curious layman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    382
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Curious layman


  1. 15 minutes ago, nevim said:

    I certainly wouldn’t want to be worshipping any god she worshipped!

    Why? Most of mother Teresa critics are looking at it from the outside, from a non religious viewpoint. I imagine she brought comfort to those in her care who were religious though. 

    The fact that the people in her care still believed in god and chose to be there ( I think ?) despite science being able to offer better alternatives, is interesting to me. One of the main reasons religion will never go away is because it offers hope, something better, justice for people who have nothing. 

    I find people normally stop believing in god is because they stop believing in the above rather than better scientific knowledge.


  2. 11 minutes ago, Trurl said:

    I think the purpose of this post is to compare believing vs nonbeliving. If you believed then stopped you have experienced both sides. To a believer this is important because the believer questions why you lost faith and what it means to your salvation.

    I wasn't a believer then believed in a God but it took awhile before I decided to learn about him. So I have experienced both sides. But if someone no longer believes I am interested in their reasoning. Even Mother Teresa questioned her faith.

    True, while I " just accepted" god as a kid i admit I t didnt mean I believed in him. Religion was never mentioned in our house or by anyone else I knew. So it's more that I chose not to believe in god.

    i dont think a belief in god implies that someone is irrational though. There are better scientists than me who believe in god!

    Although at times, albeit briefly, I have seriously questioned if I'm right, sometimes I'd like to think I am wrong, that there is a god, but interestingly these are both fuelled by the same thing - despair and justice.


  3. Not sure where this should be

    whenever people talk about AI they always think of it from a western point of view. But what about advanced AI/robotics from somewhere like Saudi Arabia? With really hardline views on  on religion or women. Or China for that matter with hardline views on freedom? 

    I can change my mind about about anything anytime I want, but for AI to do that it would need to be able to re program itself and be influenced by outside sources, but would it be a good idea to allow AI to do that? 

    Sorry if it's not proper question it's just something I was thinking about in work last night, religious AI and AI with different opinions on human rights.

    have looked on search but keeps saying there's a problem...


  4.  

    On 5/26/2019 at 1:39 PM, Eise said:

    One of the founders of the standard model, one of the greatest particle-physicists of the 60s and 70s, has died.

    I remember him from a book I read when I still was at school: The scientist, from the Time-Life series. The discovery of the Omega-minus was given as an example of how scientists get to their discoveries. Gell-Mann, together with Yuval Ne'eman, predicted its existence. Gell-Mann gave his theory the name 'eightfold path'. I don't know if quarks were already implicit in his theory, or that he later got the idea that the existence of quarks would explain the symmetries he found.

    I'm the first to admit I'm a complete donut when it comes to science.

    But there's something about listening to people who really know their stuff I find compelling, like the Ted talks for example. Murray Gell Mann, was for me, even better to listen to than Feynman.

    I have know idea about the math and details he was talking about, but listening to Gell Mann talk about the history of the quark and the eight fold way on life stories on you tube taught me more about science than any book could. It gave me a real appreciation of what's actually involved and how these things happen. 

    Surprised by the they few responses or mentions in the media, I know he only changed we the way we understand the world and wasn't even famous but...


  5. 15 hours ago, PervPhysProf said:

    Overcumbersome method. What are the benefits? Neutrinonic computing?

    I think they are just gluons freed from the nucleus. Like electrons and positrons being preons freed from the nucleus. 

    What are the benifits? If nothing else just the engineering, it's an amazing feat of engineering if you ask me, these experiments don't  just push the boundaries of scientific knowledge but lots of other things too, for instance it's because of projects like this that we have the internet.

    also " I think" ? Wouldn't that be the point of the experiment then, so we can know instead.


  6. 4 hours ago, DrP said:

    When I was younger it would have seemed impossible for people to have a telephone in their pocket to carry around with them without any wires, let alone a PC which lets you network worldwide and have access to the sum of the worlds information at a click. It's not even a click - you only have to touch the screen. It's all in a single slim box that goes in your pocket.

    There are many ways in which people have speculated how such feats of power generation and food and water production/recycling could be possible in the future.

     

    I know, but whenever I read about how much energy is required it's about as much energy as is in the galaxy! And that usually doesn't take into account operating energy, conversion ( 5% efficiency for antimatter engine- which would mean you would need 20 times the amount of fuel ?), 

    this is of course about going anywhere at light speed like Star Trek. Going slowly would be fine- nuclear.

    on the subject of energy, how's it possible to discover new types of ( usable) energy? I thought we knew what all the chemicals were, thought there were just a few left which just needed to be confirmed e.g. Metallic hydrogen.


  7. 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    The word politician (rather than dictator), in context, strongly implies democracy.

    The west's population is getting older, which generally means more conservative and insular and frightened to loose what they have now.

    Good point about politician! 

    Got nothing else to say about the last bit though because your right :unsure:

    Im still encouraged, just a little bit less!

     


  8.  

    5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    China has good reason to increase their solar energy collection (they don't really want to kill off their population) the rest you'll notice have made pledges way beyond the next election whilst minimally striving to attain it, oh and China's not a democracy.

    The op doesn't mention democracy, but your right about most countries doing little to reach targets, that's where the general public come in, most are making an effort I think, but whether its too little too late remains to be seen.


  9. Most aren't ( Germany, China etc ), it just small few, although that includes USA so it's a pretty big small! I'm not too worried, it's the general public who will make most of the difference. And from my experience the public are really behind it. 

    The younger generation are behind it too which is encouraging.

    Tell you what though, can't get me head around Australia not believing it, Would of thought that with the barrier reef and the plagues ( locusts etc ) they would be more environmentally minded.


  10. 2 minutes ago, Sarah Knightley said:

    What should the UN's stand be other than withdrawing its forces from Sudan? How should the USA offer military support to the Sudanese civilians? Should it interfere in any way or not? 

    Hi Sarah, welcome to the forum, I think you should change the USA to "what should we do". I think we should interfere on the grounds of humanity, I personally feel the advanced nations have a responsibility to protect and help the poorer parts of the world. 

    In practice though, especially after Afghanistan/ Iraq and Syria, would this make it better or worse for the people who live there?

    I think, because of the above, it would be best for it to be a UN led operation. There's just too much politics involved when things like these are left to individual countries i.e. USA. In this situation It's too easy for the leading country too look like an aggressor. 


  11. 10 hours ago, Phi for All said:
    !

    Moderator Note

    If this is the topic of this thread, please desist. We aren't here to advertise for anyone. Please stick to a single discussion topic, hopefully within the rules.

     

    Hi phi for All, first off this isn't a moan, so I apologise in advance if it seems that way, but what's wrong with the link beecee gave? To me it seems like the other links I've been given yet they seem fine, and personally I've found that the links I've been given have been the most educational part of the site ( which is great by the way :) )


  12. 12 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

    No, I meant the comment you moved the thread for, the sharks overpopulating comment, was a joke.

    The original thread is speculation, I suppose. However dont you think observing the benefits of carbonating the undersea vs carbon dioxide emissions is sufficient backing via mainstream science? uhh no big deal i guess.

    Because if we didnt eat fish, the fish would overpopulate. The sharks would then eat the fish, and overpopulate too.

     

    The fish would repopulate and the sharks would love it.


  13. 14 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

    WE are vital to the eco system. If greenhouse gases kill us all, there'll be nobody to eat the fish, and next thing you know, there'll be sharks overpopulating which will kill the fish anyway. 

    So my point stands.

    We are not vital to the eco system we're the problem with the eco system!

    If greenhouse gases kill us all they'll be no fish left to eat anyway.

    if we stop eating fish why would sharks overpopulate. Nature is balanced don't you know!


  14.  

    Just now, thethinkertank said:

    well you raise a good point. However, I was merely venturing a speculative solution, broadly touching on various possibilities on its implementation, to global warming. 

    Which is good of course, but I think the marine environment is far too fragile for factory's. 

    I think a dramatic change in the way people consume (plastics etc..) goods and our diets is the best way forward.


  15. 4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    Why would China sell more to the USA than vice-versa "just by it's sheer size".

    All other factors being equal it would still be balanced.

    I was thinking about how much china will consume, but that would of course have the opposite effect wouldn't it.

    still think they'll never balance it though, most of what china sells to US is cheap stuff which benefits the poor mainly, they can't compete with the wages ( and government subsidies ).

    And most Chinese, more than the population of America I believe, are still poor, and America doesn't make that much cheap stuff anymore. Not to mention the fact that most Chinese are nationalistic and prefer there own stuff.

    But is that any different to Germany or even America!


  16. It seems completely stupid to me to even think America and China can have an balanced trade deficit, china has over 1 billion people, America has over 300 million, just by its sheer size it will always have a trade deficit.

    i think America just has to come to terms with the fact there not going to be no1 anymore. 


  17. 41 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

    interesting you say that, but why antimatter?

    I thought that was the most potent thing we could use for propulsion, but thinking about it maybe a blackhole type engine, but is that even possible outside of Star Trek?

    maybe something more exotic would be needed. Dark energy maybe.


  18. To me engineering is the manipulation of science, the light bulb being the best example.

    I was reading about the graviton, apparently it's so small we won't be able to do anything with it i.e. Manufacture it for use in industry. If physics is at the stage when it's discoveries are at this point, does that mean there are certain areas of engineering where it will no longer be possible to come up with new ideas.

    or are there so many different variations of chemicals etc that we can continue to come up with completely original ideas indefinitely?

×
×
  • 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.