Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #540572
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Future Advances in Physics... |
| References | <_x8cy.4543$h27.3447@fx23.iad> <Fb5dy.5568$pV5.2616@fx21.iad> <d697ae99-5ae2-4bdd-a466-22aa1d6764eb@googlegroups.com> <JNhdy.5842$uJ5.2838@fx35.iad> <13809120-b112-4606-a970-13327e58231a@googlegroups.com> |
| Message-ID | <SFOdy.5472$Sn4.4501@fx44.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | TeraNews.com |
| Date | 2015-12-21 03:23 -0500 |
On 12/19/2015 04:07 PM, Timo wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 4:58:53 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2015 04:29 AM, Timo wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:39:16 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Back in history there was the myth of Alchemy. It was the story
>>>> that lead (relatively inexpensive) could be turned into gold
>>>> (valuable) by some means. So the thought of limitless riches
>>>> had men grinding and melting and vaporizing and condensing and
>>>> in essence inventing much of chemistry in an attempt to create
>>>> this transformation. Some stories said it was possible others
>>>> just said it was myth.
>>>
>>> Cartoon/soundbite representation of alchemy, rather than
>>> accurate. Is the correct presentation of ancient and medieval
>>> science a forbidden topic? If not, do it right!
>>>
>>>> Does anyone notice here that this particular advance in physics
>>>> actually came about through a "forbidden" topic, namely that
>>>> alchemy was actually possible?
>>>
>>> No. It didn't come about through alchemy. It came about through
>>> mainstream science. Novel, Nobel Prize recognised mainstream
>>> science. Alchemy contributed nothing (except through its
>>> contribution to chemistry in general).
>>>
>>>> But there is something about Alchemy I neglected to mention.
>>>> Namely that traditional "mythical" alchemy is "cold
>>>> transmutations". The transformation of lead to gold takes place
>>>> at the melting point of lead through the addition of a material
>>>> known as the "Philosopher's stone" that effects the
>>>> transmutation.
>>>
>>> OK, go ahead and use alchemical theories of 4/5 elements to
>>> achieve transmutation. The theories are sometimes interesting,
>>> generally wrong, and sometimes led to interesting innovations.
>>> The experimental techniques developed in alchemy were really
>>> useful to the development of chemistry (and chemical engineering,
>>> even).
>>>
>>> Don't get too hung up on the words people used. Democritus isn't
>>> a theoretical ancestor of Dalton in any useful sense, even if
>>> they both called them "atom". Words are words, not magic.
>>>
>> Timo, quit acting like a nerd! we are not talking about the
>> scientific details here, but the large sweep of politics and
>> belief. You've got the wrong hat on. When atomic transmutation was
>> discovered it doesn't matter that it came about through means other
>> than traditional alchemy. Not the point. The point is the that the
>> TOPIC of "transmutations existing" was politically forbidden.
>
> Forbidden? The discovery was loudly acclaimed by The Establishment,
> given multiple Nobel Prizes, and made science superstars. In what way
> was it "forbidden"?
I love the way scientists operate. They all get on some idea (like
transmutations are IMPOSSIBLE) They all will argue with you half a day
that this is the absolute truth no matter what the hints that it might
be wrong. And then someone finally provides definitive proof the old saw
is dead wrong. Suddenly at the speed of light EVERYONE is on the new
bandwagon. Why NOBODY EVER said it was impossible! EVERYBODY KNOWS that
this is true! Why would you accuse us a saying anything different!
(probably because they did say it). And the result is your view through
rose-colored glasses. God is in his heaven and all's right with the
world (again).
>> That someone chose to actually buck the tradition (even in another
>> area) is of some note. Just try publishing a paper that involves
>> "intelligent design" even in a totally unrelated discipline.
>
> Want to publish in science? Ideally, you should have science in your
> paper. If, in principle, you had actual scientific evidence of ID,
> what would the real obstacle be? The bar would be a bit higher, due
> to the non-science of ID that's out there, so your scientific ID
> paper would be suspected of being a non-science ID attempt to get
> respectable scientific publications.
>
> If you're putting it into a paper in a totally unrelated discipline,
> swift rejection might well be in order. Because "totally unrelated".
Nice story, Timo. But your pretense that the publication process is
totally fair, unbiased and apolitical is not how it is. A really good
examples along these lines can be found in the documentary "Expelled"
with Ben Stein. Naturally all the "debunkers" have panned the film as
"conspiracy theory" and all the usual name-calling that you see here
directed at me. Which oddly enough is proof of my contention (and that
of the film) of political bias and censorship in science.
> ("Intelligent design", in the human-done sense is a sadly diminishing
> art. After a recent DIY task, I was asked "Was it easy?". Except for
> idiot design, it would have been easy. What kind of moron puts screw
> holes where the rest of the thing stops easy access to the screw
> heads, and there is plenty of structurally sound space 1cm away where
> access would be easy. Plus needing to actually fix the thing because
> idiot designers made it so that essential moving parts would jam.
> Engineering schools out there: your job is to stop this kind of
> thing.)
And of course this point is very much correct which is highly in
evidence in most any automotive design when with age comes the need for
repairs. I certainly can point with some authority to the Brit E-type
Jag I used to own as a premier example of lack of ID. And sadly, though
you mention only mechanics, the problem is FAR more widespread than
that, particularly infesting much software regardless of cost. I do have
a crusade to stop high schoolers in a garage (or basement in the case of
Rolf) level software being allowed to be distributed without the
programmers waterboarded and subjected to other EIT.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 23:39 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-19 06:52 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 01:43 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "szczepan bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> - 2015-12-19 09:48 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:33 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:32 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-19 21:06 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 01:47 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-20 10:36 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 02:55 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-21 11:50 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "szczepan bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> - 2015-12-21 18:08 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 12:17 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:22 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-21 20:02 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:26 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-22 21:56 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 23:46 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:19 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:10 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 13:49 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 22:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:00 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:17 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 12:39 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-23 23:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-24 15:15 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 22:04 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 16:29 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 22:53 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> - 2015-12-24 18:24 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 22:18 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> - 2015-12-25 15:54 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 03:58 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-26 11:35 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 04:01 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 04:19 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 13:09 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 05:14 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:16 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:54 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-25 11:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-25 20:28 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-25 03:09 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 04:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-25 11:01 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:39 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-22 18:17 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 17:23 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 19:44 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:27 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:45 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-19 01:29 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 11:15 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-19 13:07 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 03:23 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 01:11 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 16:47 -0800
csiph-web