1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is Ignorance Bliss?

« on: April 05, 2008, 06:47:06 AM »

The same could be said about heroin though. It's good until you rely on it. Anything is good until you rely on it. But if ignorance is bliss, the ultimate happiness, then wouldn't we be relying on it already, to supply bliss? And if this is the case then we've arrived at a Catch 22 in your definition.  Couldn't the pursuit of knowledge, the escape from ignorance be considered bliss instead?

No because after all is said and done it doesn't get you any farther. If you seek the ultimate truth, admit that you can't really know anything for sure and adopt a WTF mentality.

Fair enough, I've recently come to adopt that existentialist philosophy as well.; question everything. I was merely maintaining that ignorance can never be bliss based on the terms of "unless you rely on it" because you are relying on it to supply bliss right off the bat, and therefore it is a catch 22  in that sense. It's not where it fits in to life that I am truly concerned with, but rather what it can be defined as. In my opinion, the search for ultimate truth is the search for the ultimate definition, no?

Yet not bothering at all greatly simplyfies matters, as you can avoid any problem in the philospohical field by not caring about it. In everyday life you might run into problems though.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is Ignorance Bliss?

« on: April 04, 2008, 04:02:47 PM »

The same could be said about heroin though. It's good until you rely on it. Anything is good until you rely on it. But if ignorance is bliss, the ultimate happiness, then wouldn't we be relying on it already, to supply bliss? And if this is the case then we've arrived at a Catch 22 in your definition.  Couldn't the pursuit of knowledge, the escape from ignorance be considered bliss instead?

No because after all is said and done it doesn't get you any farther. If you seek the ultimate truth, admit that you can't really know anything for sure and adopt a WTF mentality.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Designer always greater than the creation?

« on: April 04, 2008, 03:58:21 PM »

How so? It seems to me that no organism is capable of creating beyond their means....

Dude for a second I was inclined to use that statement against you. Even if the means of organisms are limited by the laws of physics, in the face of a a coral reef being created by microorganisms one needs to expand his definition of limits.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The curvature...

« on: April 04, 2008, 03:44:56 PM »

Just ask yourself how easy it would be for THEM to engineer the passenger windows, so one might see the glimpse of a curvature. Oldest trick in the book, a few microns thicker glass on the edges and well applied psychology and viola, you've got a "clearly" visible curvature.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun Warmness in Winter and in Summer

« on: April 04, 2008, 03:36:30 PM »

Hey, guys. I understand most of you can't even imagine that FE theory is close to the truth, but here we have really good issue about the sun's warmness.

Do you guys think of this as of paradox or you have clear explanation of why snow is not melting in the winter in the sunlight?

Wouldn't it be much more elegant if you explained this by a change of energy in photons? Who would really notice something strange like the Planck constant to vary?

6

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Tank melter

« on: April 04, 2008, 03:05:15 PM »

Yet it seems puzzling that anti-missile systems are reality, while not a single tank has yet been destroyed by this plane. It just might be the case that my point of view wasn't so stupid after all
And yeah even the smartest people need to test their inventions, most natural thing in research there is.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Designer always greater than the creation?

« on: April 04, 2008, 06:22:56 AM »

Disagree. And ant doesn't make an anthill singlehandedly. And what exactly does an anthill make?

The only examples that go towards what I'm talking about that I know of are:
1) Evolution (which is at the heart of the question, so I'm actually more interested in other examples)
2) Computer programs that can recreate themselves. But they don't make anything greater, just simply themselves.

*BUMP*

Saint Raist only left to say that while a ant doesn't singlehandedly create an anthill, a seemingly chaotic bunch of them will achive this task, without the final result being programmed in every ants head. So a very complex structure was "created" by a few insects only following scent trails.

And the other examples remain to be discussed...

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Organic molecules found on far-away planet

« on: April 04, 2008, 06:08:19 AM »

Baseless speculation.  You know nothing of the conscious awareness of gamma rays and/or clouds.  And calling Flat Earth Clouds dense is just a little below the belt. 

Mr. Cloud begs to differ
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/estaquente/funny_pictures/a67f096809415ca1c9f112d96d27689b.jpg

9

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Tank melter

« on: April 04, 2008, 06:01:52 AM »

Um, they could test it on the ground. And they explain that it uses a rotating mirror that compensates for the planes, and targets movements. Read harder. Also, if the laser isn't strong enough, they could easily figure it out without spending millions to put it on a plane.

(here's a fast fact, planes like air force one, can hit a missile with a smaller laser that can destroy it, the missile is smaller and faster. a slow moving tank seems like a much easier target.

May be true but you still need to test these systems in action, e.g if you can supply the power and get the accuracy you were hoping for. Missiles fly fast but follow a straight path, so you can easly compensate, plus you don't need to hit them for several seconds, one short burst and they get ripped apart by the speed.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why I love Douglas Adams

« on: April 04, 2008, 05:57:10 AM »

In a Douglas Adam's Adventure more along the lines of: "A Grue ate your Grandfather. You never existed. And by the way the whole Universe sucks"

I don't understand your point, this is epic win, right thar, and you should know it by now.

Yeah well at last we got something in common. Or on the other hand I think we don't

11

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Tank melter

« on: April 04, 2008, 05:52:08 AM »

You are dumb. If they can paint a target with a laser from an airplane, to get a bomb to hit it, i bet the can hit it with a bigger laser.....

Also, the laser obviously can burn through the intended targets, or they wouldn't have loaded it into the airplane, think before you speak.

Yeah of course it's obviously the same to mark a target with a small dot(which is by the way far from easy, read the last paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-guided_bomb) than to keep the complicated mechanic necessary to redirect a laser beam this big at A SINGLE SPOT ON THE TARGET for over a few seconds. As i said this is difficult, but not  that it's impossible so please use your own brain before accusing others of being stupid. the reason they loaded that laser into that airplane is to test the system or why do you think these airplanes aren't flying around already?

12

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Organic molecules found on far-away planet

« on: April 03, 2008, 09:27:09 AM »

Alcohol has been found out in some cosmic clouds but that doesn't translate to beer in space.

Woot? how does that remain stable in measurable quantities with all the cosmic radiation pounding on it?

Cloud cover? 

Well gamma rays aren't really aware of the existence of clouds, which aren't even remotely as dense as clouds on earth

13

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Organic molecules found on far-away planet

« on: April 03, 2008, 07:54:24 AM »

Alcohol has been found out in some cosmic clouds but that doesn't translate to beer in space.

Woot? how does that remain stable in measurable quantities with all the cosmic radiation pounding on it?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Snowfall: An Irrefuteable Proof.

« on: April 03, 2008, 07:28:06 AM »

Let us consider the greatest difference between FE and RE.
FE proposes the earth to be flat.
RE proposes the earth to be round.

So if you were to draw a line normal to the earths surface, the distance between two such lines would grow, assuming they are not the same line, the further the lines got from the surface if the earth is round. If the earth is flat, all lines normal to her surface would be parallel.

This is where snowfall comes in. If the earth is round, as snow falls antinormal to earth, the snow should become denser and denser the longer it falls. This means that snow densities should be inversely-proportional to the altitude of the surface of earth. Since the rockies have much more snow than a city at sea level, like L.A., we can logically deduce the earth to be flat.

Ok let's assume the earth was a perfect sphere, there was no climate at all and the atmospheric layers were smooth and the same thickness everywhere. Then this theory may make sense at first sight, but then some small child with a sense for proportion might dare to inquire if the effect of curvature was even measurable on scales of a few miles up to the clouds.
The answer, sadly, would be that even the tiniest gush of wind would make it impossible to tell the difference.Not to mention the absurd posibility of the snow not falling perfectly distributed in the first place. Surly our atmosphere isn't THAT untidy.

And Yeah well , if the Earth was flat, snow should fall completely uniform. I wonder why the Andean don't freeze over until 2.5 miles upwards while in the Arctic you've got ice at sea level. Pretty strange distribution of heat sources isn't it?
But its probably the conspiracy hiding a giant nuclear reactor in the mountains...

15

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Tank melter

« on: April 03, 2008, 06:50:20 AM »

Mount Everest for instance? It would be pretty bad for the crew but there are more effective and cheaper ways the get them in trouble. Take in account atmospheric effects, problems in aiming at the exact spot of the tank from an airplane for several seconds and the difficulty of power consumption and overheating into account and 1.5 feet of ceramic reinforced steel look pretty tough...

16

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Organic molecules found on far-away planet

« on: April 03, 2008, 06:44:13 AM »

That stuff is hardly rare in the near vicinity of stars. It may be needed for life but does not at all hint there should be life.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Designer always greater than the creation?

« on: April 03, 2008, 06:37:16 AM »

Well by the way string theory DOES adequately describe the Big Bang, actually at last 10^50 variations. Unlike FE, which simply states "it is because it is". Even the most inconsistent theory will take you farther than this.
But what the hell i strongly suspect that any member of this board including me would only be able to interpret the formulas of Big Bang or even String Theory.

On the part of complexity: Well look arround you, there are examples everywhere. A Single cell is undoubtedly more complex than a human. Turbulence is more complex than a bunch of air or water molecules in motion. A fractal is more complex than a mathematical formula although the formula "contains" every possible aspect of the fractal. A anthill is more complex than 1000 ants and a pile of dirt, it has a distinct social structure, complex architecture and is constantly changing and extending "itself", so to speak a life of its own. Yet this complexity isn't contained in a single ant's brain. Its the interaction between a lot of ants that counts. So yes, A simple insects can build a more complex anthill, a single cell can become a human, the rules of that govern the movement of air a butterfly and some bad luck CAN make life miserable for Floridians and a simple forumla can become a infinitely complex picture. Any more questions?

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why I love Douglas Adams

« on: April 03, 2008, 06:11:10 AM »

In a Douglas Adam's Adventure more along the lines of: "A Grue ate your Grandfather. You never existed. And by the way the whole Universe sucks"

19

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Tank melter

« on: April 03, 2008, 06:05:23 AM »

I doubt this will melt a tank in a realistic space of time. Would look awesome however, at last a few miles away....

20

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Organic molecules found on far-away planet

« on: April 03, 2008, 06:02:23 AM »

Why should this be called alternative science?
And anyway organic molecules don't really give you any clue about life on that planet, at last basic stuff like Methane doesn't