Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Robin S

Pages: [1]
1
Quote from: Robin S
The magnitude of a velocity is always positive by definition, but when you resolve in a particular direction (for example, the direction opposite to the direction of travel) you may obtain a negative value.

a negative value for what?
For the component of the velocity in the direction you have resolved.

Say that we define a fixed cartesian co-ordinate system for our velocity to be measured relative to (since all velocities must be measured relative to something). Then, taking the units of metres per second resolved parallel to the x, y and z axes, it is entirely possible that we will obtain three negative values. In other words, starting at the origin and allowed to travel for 1 second, our object might end up at the position (-3,-2,-5). The magnitude of its velocity would still be positive (in this case, sqrt38 metres per second) but we have resolved it in directions which give negative components. There is no contradiction at all here, since we are measuring two different aspects of the velocity: its magnitude, and its components parallel to fixed axes.

2
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Mental illness/brain waves
« on: February 22, 2007, 04:50:19 AM »
Basically you take a dosage of a [completely legal] substance that allows you to enter the mythic realm.
Got any papers I can read on this?

3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / You are all figments of my imagination.
« on: February 18, 2007, 07:16:09 PM »
Ah, but I was asking you to prove to me that you existed...

*gives up*

4
Technology, Science & Alt Science / We are all born at 10 years old.
« on: February 18, 2007, 07:15:13 PM »
For that matter, once we're dead, who's to say we were ever born?

5
Quote from: "unclegravy"
That you exist if you affect anything that is not you?
Albeit you are begging the question indirectly. How, for example, do you know whether you affect anything?

6
Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread
« on: February 18, 2007, 05:53:01 PM »
There is practcally no evidence at all about the exact circumstances surrounding the origin of the Universe, so people who claim it was created by a god should be free to believe that without being hampered by accusations of contradicting science.

Put more concisely, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

edit: Whether intentionally or not, your words are equating the claims of creationists in general with the claims of Christians. I am Jewish by birth, if not by faith, and take issue with this. Many Jews advocate a liberal interpretation of Genesis and still beieve in a Creator. Ridiculing a literal interpretation of Genesis does not ridicule the notion of a Creator.

7
Technology, Science & Alt Science / We are all born at 10 years old.
« on: February 18, 2007, 05:50:52 PM »
Once I am able to take the first post in this thread seriously, then I will consider whether or not to take any of its replies seriously.

8
Technology, Science & Alt Science / You are all figments of my imagination.
« on: February 18, 2007, 05:48:30 PM »
I've got a feeling I've read that before somewhere. But that doesn't make the claim that Chung Chou might not exist, only that he might not be who he thought he was.

9
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Global Warming to sort itself out
« on: February 18, 2007, 05:41:49 PM »
On the other hand, if no-one ate steak, the beef industry would go out of business. Hmm...

Personally I prefer the old adage: "Save a cow: eat a vegetarian". Sure, you'll be ruining the climate, but I find it's considerably more entertaining.

10
Unfortunately, you appear to be defining the matter in terms of itself. Doing that tends to get rather tricky, logically speaking.

11
You still haven't defined what existence is, so your last question, though thought-provoking, is logically meaningless.

I would also, incidentally, recommend that you do not try to invoke limit theory in philosophy. The two would appear rarely to be compatible.

12
I have posted elsewhere, as you may observe by looking at the "last post" column on this forum's main page. If your theory was falsifiable, it wouldn't be a matter of believing it but rather of proving or disproving it. Only non-falsifiable theories merit belief or disbelief.

13
Technology, Science & Alt Science / You are all figments of my imagination.
« on: February 18, 2007, 05:23:59 PM »
Touché.

14
Quote from: "Robin S"
I would. Nothing wrong with believing in it, though.
I did.

15
The Lounge / Why is there so little tolerance of "faith" here?
« on: February 18, 2007, 05:17:28 PM »
The Flat Earth Society clearly discourages prejudice on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality and presumably other things, yet some of its members have no qualms about insulting each other just for believing in God. I can see that a lot of the religion-related comments are intended as jokes, but claiming that believing in God makes you an idiot, implies that you have low intelligence etc. must surely be considered at least a bit offensive? Myself I am agnostic, and I do not consider atheists to have any more scientific evidence supporting their position than do those who believe in God. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not of science. Shouldn't people be free to believe what they want without being insulted, just as they should be free to be open about their sexuality?

16
Sorry, what? I didn't quite understand that last bit.

17
Quote from: "unclegravy"
Furthermore, is there such a word as "unfalsiable"?
Non-falsifiable may be the correct term. You got my intended meaning.

Quote from: "Nolan"
How do we even know we exist now?
Define "existence" in a way which does not imply that you exist now.

18
I would. Nothing wrong with believing in it, though.

19
Almost identical to the "we are all born at 10 years old" thread. Unfalsiable and therefore not science, but feel free to philosophize over it.

20
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Animals living in the Earth's Core
« on: February 18, 2007, 04:26:42 PM »
If the Earth is flat, it has no core. If it is round, it is inconceivable that life should traverse the thousands of miles between the surface and the core without leaving a trace in the intermediate area. No life or remnants of life have been found in lava. As for the possibility of life arising independently at the core, consider that according to current scientific understanding of the origin of life it would have to spontaneously form complex structures from simpler ones in an environment where such processes are inhibited.

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Global Warming to sort itself out
« on: February 18, 2007, 04:20:52 PM »
Quote from: "RESOCR"
i believe it exists at the same time i believe it's overexaggerated. we certainly contribute to it, but methane, an molecule 8 times heavier and 20 times more effective a GW particle is 75% produced by cows.
The only gas which is 8 times less "heavy" than methane is hydrogen which, as far as I am aware, is not a significant concern to environmentalists. The percentage of methane being produced by cows may or may not be 75%, but even if it is, why do you think there are so many cows? Incidentally, I understand that global methane production appears to be slowing whereas the reverse is true of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, the effects of carbon dioxide are considerably longer-term than those of methane and this is another consideration to make when comparing the two gases.

22
Technology, Science & Alt Science / The evolution thread
« on: February 18, 2007, 03:57:20 PM »
Everyone here seems to equate "creationism" with "young-earth creationism". Do people take issue with creationism in general, or is it specifically those creationists who deny evolution etc.?

23
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Mental illness/brain waves
« on: February 18, 2007, 03:46:33 PM »
Quote from: "weevil"
Yes parallel universes could indeed exist. I read ages ago in a time magazine how scientists did some experiment with shining a light through a pinpoint in a piece of paper and somehow seeing a shadow or something which could only be explained by a parallel universe. I wish I could remember the premise a little better. Does anyone know what it was?
You are thinking of Young's double-slit experiment, a famous experiment which helped physicists to develop some of the theories of Quantum Mechanics. Place a barrier in front of a screen, and shine light (or an electron beam) through two slits in the barrier which are separated by a distance similar to the wavelength of the beam. Then the light, or electrons, will form an interference pattern on the screen which is generally recognized as being a property of waves. This will occur even when only a single particle passes through the slits at a time, so it is not merely due to large numbers of particles interfering with each other. Most theoretical physicists believe that this is due to the particles actually possessing some of the properties of waves, but a minority hold the opinion that it is due to interactions between particles in our universe and those in other universes. It may be that it is impossible to prove which explanation is correct, in which case the theories which have been developed to account for them would more properly be termed philosophy than science.

24
What?

25
Technology, Science & Alt Science / The Wheel
« on: February 18, 2007, 03:21:51 PM »
Hamsters can roll around inside plastic balls [edt: didn't see your comment there, Wolfwood]. Wheels or spheres or whatever rolling method of transportation you favour wouldn't have to evolve from legs; there are plenty of animals without legs which could evolve them if they suited those animals' purposes. I don't see what's wrong with the idea of an animal moving by rolling its entire body along in principle, but from a practical standpoint it would mean having to expose its entire body surface (or at least, a band running the length of its body) to the ground and would make keeping an eye on things whilst moving inherently difficult.

Incidentally, tumbleweed rolls.

26
The magnitude of a velocity is always positive by definition, but when you resolve in a particular direction (for example, the direction opposite to the direction of travel) you may obtain a negative value.

27
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Oddities in Biblical Literalism
« on: February 18, 2007, 03:09:41 PM »
What is the definitive "literal" interpretation of the Bible? Human language is not logically rigorous; it is naturally open to intrpretation. It is down to individuals to choose what they interpret as being the literal or correct meaning of the words. Obviously some things aren't really down to interpretation unless you really twist things about ("and he lived 900 and x years", that kind of thing) but there are plenty of ambiguous lines in the Bible as in any large body of text (such as the law, which is one of the reasons we have courts).

28
Technology, Science & Alt Science / You are all figments of my imagination.
« on: February 18, 2007, 03:02:57 PM »
Ah, but I think and therefore I am.

29
Technology, Science & Alt Science / You are all figments of my imagination.
« on: February 18, 2007, 02:55:23 PM »
Discuss.

Pages: [1]