Klaplunk

That's composed of two things aswell as having a center and 2 halves. And yes you can

Anything, a cell, a human, a house, a metal sphrere, a dog, a brain, a router, a cup. Has a center and an outside, and be cut into to two halfs, and kind of expands over two halves(from the center).

I don't believe that's the answer to my first question. -Previous point made. Peace.

I suggest you tell me what you believe 'logic' is.

You brand it as philisophical, there's no reason for it not to be tested as something previously discovered in science has been. It's not philisophical at all, it contains numbers, tell me what in life doesn't relate to numbers - just because it isn't explained elegantly, you 'dismiss' it. Which you do, whether it's science or not. If I ask, "What's 5+5?", I don't want to be told, 'It's maths', just say 10. I don't understand your yammer half of the time, it's like a monotone buzz just waving along, ignoring anything out of its tone. "It's not science, therefore wrong", "Okay, but what is 5+5?" "... It's not science, you're asking a quest-...."

It's a yes or no answer.

I asked a question.

Not at all, that's your branding system - you automatically treat me with that attitude as you believe I'm that kind of person; being semi-hypocritical about science, because you don't test anything. I'm not taking science, ever; but I will be following it, to see where 'it' goes, I don't believe 'it' is everything, because it is an 'it', and I'm a 'me', and I live 'life' - you guys can't explain that, and you dismiss anything that gives us the option to believe, because it cannot be tested, or we 'lack' evidence. I arrive and I place a question; you don't answer the question, to tell me that the question is not a question - then argue with me on that single point. Ranting and raging about me being pseudo, disgraceful word which you use so freely; it removes a large amount of vision, and 'free-thought' which you imprison. If you discuss, and explain, why it's wrong, then you're allowing freedom. I haven't been on in a while, I probably won't be on again - I think you should think about 'it' a bit more.

We all have 4 quarters?

Hey, I just wanted to know everyones opinion on this serious conspiricy theory, I'm full aware that some of you probably think it's rubbish, and some might not know. It's explained in this video. I thought it would be nice discussion, more on the sciences of everyday life, than chemical; so yeah, what do you think of it?

Isn't every pure entity composed of 2 halves? therefore 2 things? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedyou put one thing in another to create more? or you have a centre and an outside?

You make no sense - Remember, I'm a Philosophy student. If you could explain that in English rather than Science, it would help a lot. Here's a rule; how do you know that the gravitational pull of the earth isn't cause by a reaction from an opposite 'magnetic force' in space. For example, this thread I was just reading: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52740 If in each corner of that diagram, lay a magnetic force = to either positive or negative; and the core of the earth held a similar magnetic force, the earth would be spinning AND tilting very very slowly. That would answer your question for a rule you COULD use - however it cannot be a rule, as it can't or won't be tested. So for now it's just a hypothesis; and that's all it will be. It sounds reasonable, and sounds possible; that's where WISDOM plays its part - one can decipher the difference between possibility and impossibility. I'm not talking flying pigs or talking bread; I'm speaking about magnetism! It's reality, and if it were TRUE it would work! All the evidence that shows that 'If it were true it would work' is in our lives. I loved that thread, was a great read. I also enjoyed the Hyperspace thread - I didn't see you contesting the Hyperspace one, so I imagine what he's trying to explain is correct. Anyway, yeah, never mind sleep, quarks got me awake!

This is my last post in this thread, just a question: Why can you not incorporate these other paths within science? You would still be studying the universe. You may find, with these new rules, new answers. It doesn't mean you have to make two sections: Science/Not Science. It means you can make ScienceA and ScienceB - and as for "missing the point", you have done since the start. I'm tired, that's my excuse, 06:33am. I've been up all night studying 'Quarks'. I know exactly what you're saying; I just don't understand YOUR mind; you seem so trapped, you won't accept anything but the "scientific truth" which isn't the truth - it's the truth only according to rules. Well, okay. By taking that path you have received some answers. With that, you can take other paths, and probably progress along them faster than the first. I don't see why not; again, what's hard about picking up ANOTHER piece of paper and drawing out a new theorem, with new rules? Don't throw away the OLD theorems, have them alongside the new ones. Although it's not "science", it should be, because it's studying the universe, either way, no matter how small. Not everyone has the equipment; everyone has a brain and is human, and lives. Gnight! x) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'll answer this later today; I need sleep. I'll ask one thing though fast; what has temperature got to do with light, isn't that heat? If light produces heat, then that is two factors, heat and light. So when you say light has a speed, you really mean light and heat have a speed? I'll edit this later. Gnight.

I don't understand, I know the difference between a radio wave and a light wave. One is visible, the other isn't. I can cut down a tree into four vertical quarters, then place them on-top of each other. They have then travelled distance; it was pretty slow, so I would say the speed of wood is 00.9 miles per hour. No. How do you relate radio waves to light? There's an obvious difference, AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE. It's like saying a sheep and a pig, they're not the same. Sheep's taste better, naturally. This bit was the best. But that doesn't mean that any random idea you can imagine should be taken seriously Automatically our ideas become 'Random' and 'Silly'; why? Because we don't follow sciences rules! That's not fair at all, that's biased; especially to those wise and committed people who spend time coming up with these theories or hypothesis. Why should your ideas make more sense than mine? Because you can tell me that the sheep (which I know is a sheep), is a sheep because it has - "these cells" and its wool is made from mithril and rainbow dust. It's still a sheep, and I can tell the difference between a sheep and a cat. Lets say a shaven sheep walked past my house in 30 minutes time. Am I allowed to call it a sheep, or would I need to do vigorous testing on it first to define that it is so. Or gravity! It pulls us towards the earth , I know this. Yet, because you know that it pulls in this weight, and is composed of electro-magnetic energy, you are more qualified to create theorems, because you can explain it in an elegant way. Where I would say, "Gravity, it pulls us towards the planet! LOLIDUNNO" You would say, "Quark. Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Charm and Strange. F=21, x=12 xD2 .... ...." I have no problem with this! I do have a problem with you telling me that my theorems or hypothesis are random and silly, just because I cannot explain them in the way you can. You're very selfish and self-loving to think that. I would be the first to congratulate you if you made a discovery; but you're the first to dismiss someone else's if they don't have enough evidence to prove it. The thing is though, what are you discovering? I don't see you, or any other moderator, discovering anything. I do see young people, and old, using there brains and trying hard to come up with an answer to this life; and then you throwing it away, as it means nothing to you and your current progress with your current rules. Obviously, science needs to be testable - that doesn't mean you can't try other rules. Here's you: ------------------------- Science ------------------------- Other Path ------------------------- Another Path Does the science path break by the other two paths existing? No it doesn't; however those paths are exempt, because science dismisses them, and seeing as science is this thing that everyones got to believe, cause billions of cash is spent on it, and the build rockets to go into space and stuff (sorry, i'm so tired, effortless typing). You can easily follow sciences rules AND indulge in others; it will still make it testable. It's just that science wont allow these other paths. Is it really that hard to get a fresh piece of paper and try new rules? ALONGSIDE the ones you already know; I'm not saying forget them, just put them aside to try something else. Do you have a problem with that?

Philosophy of the Mind. Anyway, on terms of E=MC2. Isn't it the Speed of Light and Mass? No-ones ever travelled at the speed of light, so what makes you believe it has a speed? Was it not just a educated guess, that was made into a rule, then placed against other "theories" or "hypothesis", where it worked? So what's the problem with coming up with another rule? Inconvenience? I'm very sorry if I've misunderstood some of your explanations in the other threads; maybe you're talking using "Scientific Language", which wouldn't be the same as the Anglo or English language in some respects. However, point still stands! You've never travelled the speed of light; (some say it's impossible), so how do you ""KNOW FOR SURE"", that it has a speed? -If you don't, then how can you deny the principle of coming up with new rules, even without enough evidence to support it. Humanity and Science = 0.00000000001%, probably less according to science, of the universe. How can you put your trust in such a small number? Sorry, not the question. How can you trust a certain path, closed in with certain rules as walls, instead of knocking down those walls and broadening your minds? Remember this; the imagination that is in our heads, and the childrens, and the psychopaths locked up in padded cells, is all man made. How is it possible to imagine something without knowledge of something existing? Here's an example: **not science, naturally** I'm 0; I say yes or no. I then see 2; he is a man, and quite tall and hirsute. I acknowledge him, so I've said yes. I then see 3; she's a golden eagle, and she's flying pretty fast! I acknowledge her! Yes! I'm 0; I say yes or no. I know of a tall hairy man and a large flying bird. What could '0', Imagine, at this point?

Again your glibness pays you no credit. You're approaching this with little maturity - yet still stand by your reasons. I could say the moon is made from cheese, or I could suggest that maybe the moon tastes like cheese, or I could say there is cheese on the moon; three different stages - your examples relate to the first one; you then stoop (closer to my level) and your example relates to the second one. The third example is the most relevant; it's not proven, yet it can be proven, correct or incorrect. When someone explains a 'Theory', they don't automatically believe it is the answer; they want progression. A "Theory" is a question. You dismiss it as drivel - when it is nothing more than an idea; one that could or could not be correct. What proves E=MC2 correct?

None of us is Clipper? You've blown it out of the water with your example; of-course, using supernatural factors would make a theory seem wrong - although we cannot prove it is. If we're talking reality and things that occur in reality; it becomes a different kettle of fish.

Perhaps you may rename the speculation section to something more appropriate; so when us 'speculators' make a speculation, we don't go posting it into the wrong section. You've made this 'freelance science' section so to speak, then you've incorporated rules and regulations - therefore the freedom from speculation is removed; therefore, not a speculation section. If you want to talk science and you don't want to notice other peoples ideas, unless enough evidence is provided, then you shouldn't give the privilege. "What if" one of those ideas were correct? At this point in time there is no evidence; that does not mean you cannot try and help find evidence or at-least "discuss" or "contribute" to the idea. In all, you contradict yourself when you choose not to discuss or escalate an idea, because they don't follow sciences rules; yet you openly admit that science, in some sections, can be wrong. While you were being educated, when you took part in experiments, how did you learn? I can give a descriptive evaluation on my education: I learn what I'm told is true. I can decipher the correct from the incorrect by using my brain. I can only progress towards new heights by accepting what I've been told is true, as if I don't, everything else is a lie. I can change the truth and end up in the same position - progression wise. Without 'Rules', what is science?

Hello! I'm a student at Oxford University currently studying Philosophy and Law. I find myself learning small percentages of other subjects, due to the nature of conversation in a 'universities environment'. I live in a rented detached abode - with six room-mates; we all have our own opinions on life and delve into our imaginations to answer many of the unanswered questions, for self-fulfilment. We were browsing 4c, and it lead us here; more directly towards the 'Speculation' section. We also noticed that 99% of all threads made in that section are immediately over-run with moderators and administrators - who immediately dismiss any idea when, to their knowledge, it is incorrect. The warning given in every single thread is: "This is not Science". Then you explain your actions by perplexing the - 'Theory' or 'Speculation'. A few of the threads that took my interest were very interesting, and sounded like great ideas; not great scientific proof though. I think where you (mods, admins) go wrong, is broadening your minds, and understanding that the past is ---> behind us. "Scientific Evidence" that supports many of your current theories could be wrong; something explained by someone in 1950 could have been explained wrongly, or knowingly. If you don't accept the term 'flaws' into any theory anyone conjures, then how do you accept the ones that are set in your mind? Who's to say that things didn't go differently many years ago, and who's to say that many of the rules that you use in modern day science are edited, played "Chinese Whispers" along the line. I'm 100% sure that in many cases, a rule can be exchanged with another rule and still be correct; that rule may fall down for something else, if it does, then the second 'thing' may need a different rule. What makes you guys correct? Please answer this question, in the direction of four people. Me: Philosophy (2nd Year) Steve: Physics (1st Year) Emily: Media Major (2nd Year) Eric: F-Maths (Masters)

I understand your meaning. What does a "path" consist of in these terms, and a "beginning"?