Jump to content

farmboy

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Neutral

About farmboy

  • Rank
    Quark
  1. Lol dude, if angels have (apparently) shown themselves in the past why did you specifically say they hadn't in your opening post? That aside it only requires a minor change to the point I was making, essentially your whole argument rests on the premise that if an angel does exist, and it does have free will it would want to pose as god. I don't see how you can make such a claim, and your entire argument folds after that.
  2. I wouldnt say he was really trying to prove anything, I suppose he was trying to highlightt the absurdity of extending the copenhagen interpretation (specifically the uncertainty principle) to macroscopic (I mean human sized lol) objects.
  3. A little bit like scalar and vector quantities.
  4. I don't think there is any problem with the way we define objects (systems). As someone else has already said consciousness is something that comes about as a result of the electrochemical processes taking place in our brains. It isn't a phenomena in its own right, distinct from our physicality.
  5. 1. I'm really not sure to be honest mate, if you want to get into proper research then you will need PG qualifications and I think it is what you do then that will dictate what field your career is likely to be in. Personally if you definitely want to go into research I'd go with a standard chemistry degree at UG (will be way more interesting anyway), and then if you want to be an engineer instead pick a masters/phd project that is in the engineering field. 2. Yes, same as before, to go into research you will need PG qualifications, whether you are an engineer or a chemist will only influence the type of projects you are likely to be accpeted on. 3. I can't predict the future, but chemical engineers are highly emplyable. A chem eng BSc will generally find it easier to get a job than a pure chem BSc.
  6. With regards to what I think the OP was asking, an inability to sense light (i'm not sure that this is actually true in all bats) would probably have retarded our discovery of relativity. WOuld it have prevented it completely or led us to come to some crazy conclusion about the speed of sound? No.
  7. What you say is true, but I suspect the OP may be asking about dative covalent bonds (been years since I used that term lol) in which one of the bonding atoms 'provides' both bonding electrons. I think, though I'm far from certain, that this happens in instances where one atom is fairly electropositive and the other strongly electronegative meaning that both the bonding electrons are assosciated with the more electronegative of the two atoms.
  8. Think about them in what respect?
  9. Apologies if I missed it, but which country are we talking about?
  10. Well I'm not sure that they do, but even assuming that is true and we assume that one of those beings is an angel we only have evidence to show that they will reveal themselves at the end of days. Doesn't help the foundation of your argument.
  11. I don't think it is possible to give an absolute (or even an evidence based) answer to your question. Will science as practised by humans eventually reach a plateau? Very possibly. If we assume that there are absolute answers to life the universe and everything then it is entirely possible that these answers will prove to be beyond our understanding. Personally I don't think that will be the case, if nothing else I think that we will eventually be able to create machines capable of higher levels of thought than humans, but then that is pure speculation lol.
  12. I'll give the postive point first, I think that the general content of your proposed book will appeal to the new-age/pseudoscience crowd, and I can imagine that type of reader appreciating the connections you have made. That aside I thought that this work was pretty poor. For something you have apparently been contemplating for 30 years you don't seem to have spent much time considering what you would actually write. This type of stream of thought typing just doesn't work very well when you are trying to write a concise and convincing argument. In general you don't seem to have left yourself anywhere to go in the rest of the book, as you have already given your opinion on the majority of the ideas prevalent in modern physics which are likely to be of interest to non-experts. I think you mentioned that your goal was to unite science with pseudoscience, and if this was really what you hoped to achieve you have failed. You make it clear from the beginning that you are incredibly sceptical of science in general and feel that making up zany theories is the better way to go. You may have a science background (I'm not convinced if I'm honest) but if you genuinely want to write a book that discusses various scientifc principles you need to do a little revision. Your understanding of relativity and QM in particular were at a level that one could get from any basic history of physics book and you have twisted some of the concepts assosciated with these theories in ridiculous ways so that they might support your personal theories. Saturn and the speed of light are both somehow akin to infinity whilst atoms are generally close to zero? That really has no meaning with regards to relativity. The list of simpler scientific principles which you dont seem to grasp, or at least misunderstand, is not short and it stretches right from evolution to thermodynamics. Not sure there is much more I want to say on the subject.
×
×
  • 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.