Einstein or Newton

[AzzarTheGod]

Good posts past 2 pages.

Faraday was the dogs dog.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Religion w/o science is blind. Science w/o religion is gay.

damn this radio edit is woke

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Religion is based on faith, which means "the reasons we believe stuff that we can't prove is true." Religion is a mindvirus that propagates through indoctrination, colonialism, and intimidation.

Faith is just something that can't be seen, or isn't seen, but may be seen. It's like trust. But anyway, show me a quantum particle. Show me the big bang. Show me macro-evolution. Fact is, modern "science" takes lots of faith.

Anyway, Einstein be my answer, he layed the foundation for quantum mechanics. Lets hope "science" doesn't lead us into another dark age, still loooooots to discover. We're still so small.

[Toehammer]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Faith is just something that can't be seen, or isn't seen, but may be seen. It's like trust. But anyway, show me a quantum particle. Show me the big bang. Show me macro-evolution. Fact is, modern "science" takes lots of faith.

Anyway, Einstein be my answer, he layed the foundation for quantum mechanics. Lets hope "science" doesn't lead us into another dark age, still loooooots to discover. We're still so small.

If you are interested in the ability to see a quantum particle, then you might just be in luck. Our "evolved" human eyes are actually very well "created". The threshold of human vision is on the order of 1-10 photons. So actually, you might have in fact seen a single photon. Problem is your neural networking fortunately doesn't register it (again something that evolved so that we don't freak out and go caveman on every single photon flash of light, or retinal rhodopsin speckling randomly). Check this out... intriguing I guarantee: http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=894 it is about the quantum limits of human senses. Ever wonder why frogs are so jumpy? Could it be because they can detect single photons (better than humans)? Perhaps it's because they are cold blooded and their eye cools down to low temperatures and that eliminates most of the rhodopsin noise? I just made a theory about vision/single photons/and cold-blooded creatures! Am I a prophet? No just a disciple with faith in science, who proselytises from time to time. Interestingly, many of the histories humans have faith in come from warm-blooded animals in hot climates, where rhodopsin false alarms will trigger much more than in cold climates. Perhaps this is why the main religions and their prophets come from the mid-east/Asia? Sweet, I just made a theory about the history of faith, based on science.If your definition of faith is strictly about vision (btw a quantum of light, generated between quantum energy levels, refracting through the assembly of quantum molecules in your vitreous fluid), then you are ignoring the increased sensitivity to our senses that science (including quantum mechanics!) has offered us. I've never seen a radio wave. Also, you then eliminate any history before motion pictures and photographs. Although those are really just collections of quantum particles reflecting quanta of light, again, to your quantum mechanical eye/brain atoms.

I have seen atoms (quantum particles) in a high res transmission electron microscope; this could be described as a religious experience [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]. What though is your definition of a quantum particle? Atoms are quantum particles, insofar as they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. I hope this doesn't turn into a definition debate, as my last victim is still MIA, RIP alarti (kill shot: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=220)

Science humbly admits to doing the best job it can with available technology and data. Faith in science is gained through experience, repetition, sweat, and precision measurments. I earned my faith. Religion's faith is completely different. We shouldn't even define it next to science. Religion's faith is based explicitly on not seeing, experiencing, measuring, or verifying.

Now if you want to argue that we can't see things like quantum mechanical wave functions or electric fields, you are correct. Those are linear operators that we add/substract. We have to square them (quadratic/bilinear combination of the wave function/field) to get physically observable measurements. Scientists are so clever, and exercise such a minimal blind faith, that they even define the electric field energy density units as a square root of a joule per cubic meter and the wave function's units as a square root of an inverse cubic meter. They are such abstract concepts and don't exist in nature that we define them as irrational units. Nobody can measure the square root of a cubic meter... this is all explained in the Freeman Dyson article I linked above. It really is a good read.

Faith is a cool thing if it is constantly tested. That is science's strongest leg to stand on and religion's shakiest. It is cool to see a good, honest, caring human have faith in either science or religion.

You mentioned you hoped science doesn't lead us into another dark age... that is impossible. Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.

Why do you say also we are so small. Do you realize you are made of dead stars? Also, when you look at us as dead stars (essentially evolved hydrogen) you understand hydrogen in the universe (since possibly the big bang?) has evolved to the point where it can make accurate theories/predicitions about itself to ~12 decimal points. Pretty big stuff to me. We are huge...

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Faith is just something that can't be seen, or isn't seen, but may be seen. It's like trust. But anyway, show me a quantum particle. Show me the big bang. Show me macro-evolution. Fact is, modern "science" takes lots of faith.

Try arguing this same point without using the words "faith", "belief", "trust" and any of their synonyms. Replace those words with what you really mean by those words, for instance if by "faith" you mean accepting something as true without verifying it yourself by testing it, then you're right about the layman taking things on "faith" in their scientific beliefs, but not the scientists who do the work and research. If you mean something else by "faith" say specifically what you mean. If you do this, you'll find that there really is no argument that you're making, because one side says they're using "faith" to mean one thing, the other side another thing and it's just a bunch of noise.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? One guy says yes, because it makes sound waves, the other says no because nobody can experience the sound where if both just said what they meant, there'd be no argument at all: If a tree falls in the woods it makes acoustic waves but not auditory experiences, there's no conflicting ideas here.

I lifted this example from lesswrong.com, but if you want to learn more about how the words you use to argue really matter, read the essays on that site, it'll save you a lot of pointless arguing.

[Ahldagor]

To put it in guppy terms about the past two posts, they're third eye woke.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Every time I come up with a new idea in my own research (nanoparticle self-assembly/electrical charging/synthesis) I have to make sure Faraday didn't do it first. Faraday's conceptualization of "lines of force" (fields) essentially postulated non-infinite propagation velocities, i.e. no "action at a distance". This might be the true foundation of all modern physics. It is no coincidence that Einstein had pictures of 3 physicists on his wall to draw inspiration from: Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday.

Maxwell was so impressive. Read Freeman Dyson's article "Why is Maxwell's Theory so hard to Understand?" http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.or...manArticle.pdf Maxwell held Faraday in the highest regard as well. Dyson's article points out something very important: that scientists should blow their own trumpets, and as he says: "If Maxwell had had an ego like Galileo or Newton, he would have made sure that his work was not ignored. Maxwell was as great a scientist as Newton and a far more agreeable character..." Read the article; it explains eloquently how fields and the quantum mechanical wave function are just as difficult to understand because we can't actually measure them directly. I honestly believe if Faraday was around during the development of quantum mechanics he would have come up with a better formulation for the wave function than we have now, just like he did with fields, which is what made Maxwell's work possible. yeah... not to mention that Faraday had unquantifiable influence on modern industry...

post too long, abort!

That was a pretty entertaining post , lol. I'll send a retort when I get home, on your knighting for Faraday

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you are interested in the ability to see a quantum particle, then you might just be in luck. Our "evolved" human eyes are actually very well "created". The threshold of human vision is on the order of 1-10 photons. So actually, you might have in fact seen a single photon. Problem is your neural networking fortunately doesn't register it (again something that evolved so that we don't freak out and go caveman on every single photon flash of light, or retinal rhodopsin speckling randomly). Check this out... intriguing I guarantee: http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=894 it is about the quantum limits of human senses. Ever wonder why frogs are so jumpy? Could it be because they can detect single photons (better than humans)? Perhaps it's because they are cold blooded and their eye cools down to low temperatures and that eliminates most of the rhodopsin noise? I just made a theory about vision/single photons/and cold-blooded creatures! Am I a prophet? No just a disciple with faith in science, who proselytises from time to time. Interestingly, many of the histories humans have faith in come from warm-blooded animals in hot climates, where rhodopsin false alarms will trigger much more than in cold climates. Perhaps this is why the main religions and their prophets come from the mid-east/Asia? Sweet, I just made a theory about the history of faith, based on science.If your definition of faith is strictly about vision (btw a quantum of light, generated between quantum energy levels, refracting through the assembly of quantum molecules in your vitreous fluid), then you are ignoring the increased sensitivity to our senses that science (including quantum mechanics!) has offered us. I've never seen a radio wave. Also, you then eliminate any history before motion pictures and photographs. Although those are really just collections of quantum particles reflecting quanta of light, again, to your quantum mechanical eye/brain atoms.

I have seen atoms (quantum particles) in a high res transmission electron microscope; this could be described as a religious experience [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]. What though is your definition of a quantum particle? Atoms are quantum particles, insofar as they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. I hope this doesn't turn into a definition debate, as my last victim is still MIA, RIP alarti (kill shot: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=220)

Science humbly admits to doing the best job it can with available technology and data. Faith in science is gained through experience, repetition, sweat, and precision measurments. I earned my faith. Religion's faith is completely different. We shouldn't even define it next to science. Religion's faith is based explicitly on not seeing, experiencing, measuring, or verifying.

Now if you want to argue that we can't see things like quantum mechanical wave functions or electric fields, you are correct. Those are linear operators that we add/substract. We have to square them (quadratic/bilinear combination of the wave function/field) to get physically observable measurements. Scientists are so clever, and exercise such a minimal blind faith, that they even define the electric field energy density units as a square root of a joule per cubic meter and the wave function's units as a square root of an inverse cubic meter. They are such abstract concepts and don't exist in nature that we define them as irrational units. Nobody can measure the square root of a cubic meter... this is all explained in the Freeman Dyson article I linked above. It really is a good read.

Faith is a cool thing if it is constantly tested. That is science's strongest leg to stand on and religion's shakiest. It is cool to see a good, honest, caring human have faith in either science or religion.

You mentioned you hoped science doesn't lead us into another dark age... that is impossible. Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.

Why do you say also we are so small. Do you realize you are made of dead stars? Also, when you look at us as dead stars (essentially evolved hydrogen) you understand hydrogen in the universe (since possibly the big bang?) has evolved to the point where it can make accurate theories/predicitions about itself to ~12 decimal points. Pretty big stuff to me. We are huge...

That's why they call me Star lord bro

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you are interested in the ability to see a quantum particle, then you might just be in luck. Our "evolved" human eyes are actually very well "created". The threshold of human vision is on the order of 1-10 photons. So actually, you might have in fact seen a single photon. Problem is your neural networking fortunately doesn't register it (again something that evolved so that we don't freak out and go caveman on every single photon flash of light, or retinal rhodopsin speckling randomly). Check this out... intriguing I guarantee: http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=894 it is about the quantum limits of human senses. Ever wonder why frogs are so jumpy? Could it be because they can detect single photons (better than humans)? Perhaps it's because they are cold blooded and their eye cools down to low temperatures and that eliminates most of the rhodopsin noise? I just made a theory about vision/single photons/and cold-blooded creatures! Am I a prophet? No just a disciple with faith in science, who proselytises from time to time. Interestingly, many of the histories humans have faith in come from warm-blooded animals in hot climates, where rhodopsin false alarms will trigger much more than in cold climates. Perhaps this is why the main religions and their prophets come from the mid-east/Asia? Sweet, I just made a theory about the history of faith, based on science.If your definition of faith is strictly about vision (btw a quantum of light, generated between quantum energy levels, refracting through the assembly of quantum molecules in your vitreous fluid), then you are ignoring the increased sensitivity to our senses that science (including quantum mechanics!) has offered us. I've never seen a radio wave. Also, you then eliminate any history before motion pictures and photographs. Although those are really just collections of quantum particles reflecting quanta of light, again, to your quantum mechanical eye/brain atoms.

I have seen atoms (quantum particles) in a high res transmission electron microscope; this could be described as a religious experience [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]. What though is your definition of a quantum particle? Atoms are quantum particles, insofar as they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. I hope this doesn't turn into a definition debate, as my last victim is still MIA, RIP alarti (kill shot: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=220)

Science humbly admits to doing the best job it can with available technology and data. Faith in science is gained through experience, repetition, sweat, and precision measurments. I earned my faith. Religion's faith is completely different. We shouldn't even define it next to science. Religion's faith is based explicitly on not seeing, experiencing, measuring, or verifying.

Now if you want to argue that we can't see things like quantum mechanical wave functions or electric fields, you are correct. Those are linear operators that we add/substract. We have to square them (quadratic/bilinear combination of the wave function/field) to get physically observable measurements. Scientists are so clever, and exercise such a minimal blind faith, that they even define the electric field energy density units as a square root of a joule per cubic meter and the wave function's units as a square root of an inverse cubic meter. They are such abstract concepts and don't exist in nature that we define them as irrational units. Nobody can measure the square root of a cubic meter... this is all explained in the Freeman Dyson article I linked above. It really is a good read.

Faith is a cool thing if it is constantly tested. That is science's strongest leg to stand on and religion's shakiest. It is cool to see a good, honest, caring human have faith in either science or religion.

You mentioned you hoped science doesn't lead us into another dark age... that is impossible. Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.

Why do you say also we are so small. Do you realize you are made of dead stars? Also, when you look at us as dead stars (essentially evolved hydrogen) you understand hydrogen in the universe (since possibly the big bang?) has evolved to the point where it can make accurate theories/predicitions about itself to ~12 decimal points. Pretty big stuff to me. We are huge...

Another woke post. This guy is a monster. The forums aren't ready for him.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dyson's article points out something very important: that scientists should blow their own trumpets, and as he says: "If Maxwell had had an ego like Galileo or Newton, he would have made sure that his work was not ignored. Maxwell was as great a scientist as Newton and a far more agreeable character..."

Indicating sperglords are good (i.e. Galileo/Newton).

I feel like there is less respect for sperglords than ever in 2016 because it is an inherently disrespectful society. Academia exists but it is no longer as respected as it was by the $$$ and the magnates/oligarchy who place more emphasis on vice and ability to buy vice. Society has become one big advertisement for business/finance/law and respect for academics has fallen to the wayside.

This seems like a step backwards culturally from the time of Newton, as it takes strong egos away from science (strong egos solve problems, strong egos invent cures) and puts them in other areas where they can attain what society has advertised.