Jump to content

Charles 3781

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Charles 3781

  1. Can't you easily bait Liberals by saying "I support President Trump".
  2. I hope that when you get on a plane, your pilot doesn't follow the same objective scientific approach to co-ordinate system choice, when landing
  3. Do you think that the Arabic script could have been influenced by the Ancient Egyptian "Demotic" script, which was a kind of ultra-simplified version of the original Egyptian heiroglyphs. Have a look at examples of ancient "Demotic" and modern "Arabic" writing. They show a remarkable similarity. The same flowing, curly, looping style of writing. Quite unlike the more disconnected, angular letters of Phoenician, Greek and Latin. I
  4. Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and I - we were all called trolls in our time!
  5. Actually, you know, "Phlogiston" was perhaps an idea before its time. It was supposed to be an element with "negative weight". When a combusting substance such as wood burned, it exhumed its negative Phlogiston content, and thereby acquired positive weight. Which accounted for why burned ashes weighed more than the original wood. Sounds neat? Quite as plausible as our modern idea that Universe is expanding by intergalalactic negative "Phlogistonic "force, don't you think.
  6. Don't scientific academics gain descending degrees of renown by following these courses: 1. Making a major scientific discovery 2. Writing a popular book on science 3. Making brief guest appearances on a science-related TV show 4. Moderating a science forum where they slag off the the posters
  7. What if the magnet is attached to the door of a refrigerator. The door has a smooth glossy coat of paint, which offers very little frictional resistance to the downward pull of gravity. Why doesn't this constant downward pull make the magnet gradually slide down the door, until it falls off at the bottom onto the floor?
  8. When you say Physics was NEVER interested in objective truth, I think you do a disservice to scientists. If you'd said: "Ancient Physics - such as Ancient Astronomy, couldn't be interested in objective truth", you'd have a valid point. Ancient Astronomers could only be concerned with observing the movements of stars and planets. And by drawing up mathematical tables of these movements, the astronomers were able to successfully predict future phenomena, such as conjunctions and eclipses. The astronomers called this " Saving the Phenomena". Later on, when telescopes had been invented, astronomers were able to see more. Can't you understand this?
  9. We door-spiders pop up to catch our prey again.
  10. Mathematicians are good authorities because they can prove their theorems. As they have been able to from Classical Euclidean times, to the present. But that's not the same with modern physics. It seems to be losing touch with objective truth, and relying on "Authority figures" such as the hallowed Stephen Hawking. I don't trust him, I want to know whether his theorems can be proved.
  11. Look, iNow, and sorry if this is off topic, because in following this thread, I've lost track of what it was, but would you accept this point: In Science - Scientists frequently radically change their opinions. Whereas in Mathematics, there has been no fundamental change of opinion since the invention of arithmetic and algebra?
  12. Crikey, I'm not sure what that means, Phi - will you semaphore it by waving your spinnarettes at me on the Dark web, if you get my drift. Nudge, nudge.
  13. No, it's real, but we can only visually perceive its reality because we have two eyes. If we were one-eyed creatures like a Cyclops, we'd see everything as optically flat and 2-dimensional. We'd have to use our hands and possibly other appendages, to feel the three-dimensional physicality of bodies.
  14. I would say, that for humans, the 3rd dimension is "depth" . Like when we look at the colourful images which you kindly posted, in your OP. These are attractive, but exist only on our screens, in the form of flat 2-dimensional images. If we could perceive them in 3 dimensions as solid objects, we would be able to truly visual their 3rd dimensional nature.
  15. Daniel, you make a very important point. Governments, as you say , can be malevolent. Therefore, politicians are most definitely the last people to trust. Scientists adhere more closely to facts. But even scientists change their theories , as the known facts change as time progresses. The only people you should really trust are mathematicians.
  16. I don't believe you keep a spider as a pet. Or actually know, or ever met anyone who does. I bet you just read about the idea in a book, didn't you?
  17. If all humans were absolutely equal, we'd all say the exactly the same things, so we couldn't have discussions on this forum, or any other forum, as they'd all be the same.
  18. Snakes have never bothered me. But I absolutely can't stand spiders. They're so frightening, with their multiple, thin, stalky legs and unnaturally fast rushing mechanical movements. This fear and loathing of spiders seems universal in humans. I once read in a book, that it is caused by spiders being of extra-terrestrial origin. Could that be true?
  19. Thanks Markus. Do you mean that the "Inverse Square" law is only applicable to mild flat Euclidean space, which is essentially 2-dimensional, as squares are. Whereas in the immediate vicinity of a Black Hole", the BH's intense gravity pulls space from 2-D into the full 3 dimensions, where cubic effects take over in mathematical calculations. Is that why the maths of GR are so notoriously complicated, that they are very difficult to solve?
  20. Swansont rightly draws our attention back to the original question posed by Victheromanian. This question was: Why aren't the fields generated by inert permanent magnets considered as energy. Isn't the answer this : that our modern science cannot admit the possibility of energy coming from nothing. Always, we think, energy has be the result of some physical change in the state of matter. The matter may change its state by travelling, thus gaining kinetic energy. Or by undergoing physical changes to its internal atomic structure - by nuclear fission or fusion. Thus releasing "atomic" energy. In the form of nuclear reactors or bombs. In both cases, the matter must underdo some change of state, in order to produce energy. So, the concept of a permanent magnet producing energy without moving, or undergoing fission or fusion, is deeply hostile to modern science. And is therefore resisted. Such resistance is not new in the history of Science. You'll recall that in the 17th Century, Newton's theory of Gravitational attraction was strongly attacked, especially by French philosophers, as it didn't seem reasonable. It didn't seem reasonable to Einstein either, which is why he devised Relativity Theory to replace it.
  21. Thanks MSC. Very much appreciated. But I shy away from any direct contact such as you suggest. I like to communicate by typing on my keyboard. By that means, I can talk to intelligent, science-minded people such as yourself. It's a real, genuine pleasure. But I can't carry this any further.. Therefore, I'm going to shut down. Best wishes.
  22. The picture is thought-provoking. Doesn't it remind you of the network of billions of neurones in a human brain. With synapses lighting up as thoughts flash through them. Could the Universe, with its billions of stars, be a Cosmic Brain?
  23. Do you think that "philosophers" are just highly intelligent people who can't do maths?
  24. iNow, Magnets seem inert if left to themselves. Do you mean, they contain potential energy? Couldn't the same be said for other substances, such as petrol. Or "gas" , as you Americans ambiguously, but beguilingly, call it. The difference is this: If you put the "gas" into your "automobile", it supplies energy for a while. But then the energy gets used up, by your driving around. Whereas magnets keep their energy forever. Because the electrons inside the magnet never lose their charge. Why don't they?
  25. Thanks zapatos. After reading your post, I couldn't get it at first. But now mulling over what you said, I think I've got it - a Black Hole is so intensely concentrated towards its centre, that the pull of the outer layers (if there are any) don't matter.
  • 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.