MigL

Ah, so many 'wanna-be' Philosophers who think the universe resides in their mind, and its reasons and workings can be divined in their own heads. Good Philosophers temper their ideas with science and evidence based facts, before attempting to preach to us peons.

Or the weapons used by the android world at the end of Picard S01, that looked like flowers. Maybe they should call Swansont back to consult on the science, as all the new shows are destroying a dynasty, and I will not watch them. Except Strange New Worlds, which I like.

If you don't wish to build anything, there are, at least for infrared, 'off the shelf' cameras that can be purchased, which detect infrared sources and dispay them on a screen. I used to use one for detecting integrated circuits that had failed ( or were close to failing ) and heating up due to excessive power draw. Digital multimeters are available for $20 on eBay/Amazon for detecting low voltages and low currents on automotive or digital circuits. If you are going to test for voltage/current on your mains or higher, I suggest something with good protection, like a Fluke. The cost will be much higher, but there's nothing worse than testing a 300 or 600 volt circuit, and having your meter blow up in your hand and catch fire.

Well, to be fair, he did say and, true to his word, he didn't present any, and there is nothing to dispute or discuss on this discussion forum. Might as well close the thread, then.

Why all the comparisons of human designed airplane wings to bird wings ? The first flying machines were balloons, and had no wings. Oh, and I could design a much better system than these crappy eyeballs I have in my head. The Nikon autofocus and stabilized lenses for my camera aren't prone to hi pressure and image loss due to glaucoma.

GR has no stage to act on ...

I have posted that there may be some biases in science, gave a few examples, and even posted my definition of a 'bias' to support my stance. That being said, science, and the scientific method, is like democracy; certainly not perfect, but way better than any alternative.

I would say that, since GR is geometric, and GR fails on approach to Planck time, any notion of geometry ( spatial or temporal ) is similarly not applicable. Fields have an energy density; any field will contribute to the stress-energy-momentum tensor, and curvature.

MiG is currently a division of United Aircraft Corporation, also including Sukhoi, Tupolev, Yakovlev, Ilyushin and others. It was originally known as the Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau after the engineers who founded it during the first stages of WW2, Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich. Both have been deceased for over 50 years, and design duties passed on to be succeeded by R Belyakov ( I believe ). Over the years they have produced iconic interceptor/fighter jets which have sold in great numbers because of low cost and 'simplicity' of operation, including MiG-15 ( Korean war ), MiG-19-21 ( Vietnam war), and MiG-25 ( Iraq, and V Belenko's famous defection in 1976, with vacuum tubes in the radar ). As with your other thread, I can't take this one seriously either.

@Airbrush Why do your posts often sound like sermons ?

The gravitational wells of galaxies are extremely 'shallow'; the galactic voids where expansion occurs, just slightly more so. The dark energy term ( Cosmological Constant ? ) only slightly exceeds gravitational potential in the voids between clusters, but is not enough to overcome it at galactic scales. The gravitational potential difference is not enough to account for sufficient time dilation which would explain expansion.

Oh my. You sure are picking to discuss all the topics that will get you in trouble.

A much more current example would be the 'infatuation' of some Physicists with String Theory. It has pretty well been shown to lead nowhere, as it doesn't apply to any specific universe, but many possible ones. Yet the 'beauty' of the theory keeps many Physicists working on it, the thought being that aesthetics make 'right'. That seems to me, a 'bias'. Sorry if I seem to be picking on Physicists, but that is what I know.

I would have thought D Trump would just pay off one of the jurors, resulting in a hung jury. But knowing him, he would have used campaign financing, instead of his own money 😄 .

I don't know about you, but I was born, for the first and only time, as a result of my dad and mom having sexual relations, about 65 years ago. Do we need to have a 'birds and bees' talk ...

My personal definition of a 'bias' is a subjective like, or dislike, that is not based on available information. As an example, I know both bread and cake have equal calories, and both are bad for me, but I prefer savory bread, and dislike sweet cake; someone else, with that same information, may like cake, and dislike bread. This has happened in science, and I still believe early QM interpretations are an example. That being said, I do agree it is very rare ( but does happen ) in the hard sciences. It is probably ( my opinion, or bias ) more prevalent in the 'softer' sciences, like Psychology or Sociology where multiple 'conclusions' can be drawn from similar observations. As an example, if a Psychologist links every human interaction to sex, is it a reflection of his observations, or a reflection of his own obsession ?

Personal, subjective preferences ARE biases.

WhooHooo! At least R Nixon had the integrity to quit the Presidency; this joker is still running. I guess they'll re-open Alcatraz for the Presidential debates, and possible inauguration speech. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of themselves for letting someone convicted of an election crime to still run.

Scientists in the 30s and 40s had access to the same evidence of quantum behavior, yet they split along interpretative lines. N Bohr's ( Copenhagen ) wave mechanics, and W Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. One could call that a 'bias' of sorts, since the evidence was the same, but one camp preferred one over the other. It was only later that those interpretations, and many more, were determined to be equivalent. Where were you when I was making that exact same point in the "your thoughts on Islam' thread 🙂 .

Thanks sensei.

Sorry, this 'anarchy ensures only the survival of the most fit ( see, religion is based on evolution )' should have been anarchy, or the lack of moral/social controls, ensures only the survival of the most fit ( see, religion is a counter to evolution )"

I just can't take this conversation seriously, may be scientific bias, when he's talking about reincarnation ...

I, personally, don't see a reason for Luc to back his 'claim' with a citation. ( or perhaps, he can cite me ) There are many examples of this effect in the history of science. Newton's corpuscular theory of light held sway over scientific thinking for a large group of scientists. Huygens wave theory similarly had a large number of believers in its 'truth' ( small t ). Then, for a few centuries, the 'truth', and belief of almost all scientists, was duality, where it is both particle and wave. The actual Truth ( capital T, or maybe I should say current belief and small t ) is that it is neither, but, a probabilistic phenomenon that can act as a wave or a particle, depending on the experiment used to detect it. Even the various interpretations of Quantum Mechanics had their 'followers' and 'apostles'; the 'Copenhagen camp' were N Bohr's followers, and there are many examples of this 'group think' in historical literature. But I do agree with INow, religion and science are based on different paradigms; one on beliefs, the other on evidence. Luc should have started another thread to discuss the evolution of science, and its issues; this one is about religion And I liked INow's quip about Galileo ...

It is a measure of control over a population, that ensures conformity to norms in morality and social behavior ( like treatment of the poor, being thankful for what you have, etc. ). A measure of control is favorable and necessary; anarchy ensures only the survival of the most fit ( see, religion is based on evolution ). A measure of control is unfavorable, and even evil, depending on who, or what, exerts this control, and the corrupted ideological purpose of this control ( wars wer fought 'for' religion, people s were persecuted 'for' religion, etc. )

Humans don't want utopia, they need the struggle and choice; that's what makes us human. The machine intelligence already tried that. They put us all in pods to supply bio-electricity, after we scorched the sky, and fed us an illusion of utopia; the Architect made it quite naturally perfect, a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph only equaled by its monumental failure. The solution was stumbled upon by an intuitive program, called Oracle, whereby 99 % of subjects accepted the program if given adversity and choice, even if only an illusion. Unfortunately, this unbalanced equation leads to an anomaly, that if left unchecked, might threaten the system. This necessitates the destruction of the human race, every so often, to re-insert the anomalous code into the prime program. Oh wait ... that was a movie also.