no, science tries[/] to go beneath human perception to objective reality, but reality is not entirely objective -- life exists, and therein emotions exist,.. and although emotions may have their roots in the intercourse of physical matter, their ends are not totally physical [hence the existence of the term "metaphysical"], and therefore science is endlessly trumped by the constant enquires of philosophy.
besides: what is a photon?
A photon is a piece of matter of a particular size that vibrates in space and time at a certain frequency. Just like every other piece of matter in the universe. Everything vibrates and moves around. Some are big...some are small and the scale both up and down in size is infinite.
Xrays and Gamma rays are also photons but they are smaller in size and vibrate faster. They are absolutely everywhere, and all the time, but they move too fast so we just can't see them with our eyes. We can trap them on Xray film though as proof that they were there (which explains why Xrays are reverse images). Neutrinos which are even smaller...are so small they can move seemingly right through matter itself. Every single second billions of neutrinos are zooming right through your body...we are being bathed by them inside and out. They keep on going and travel right through the earth itself for that matter.
Increasingly smaller particles relative to our perception move faster and faster...and faster...and faster to infinity. Not because they are going any faster than us...it is all to do with the perspective of the observer. Which is why I say that beyond quarks or Quantum magnitude study are infinitely smaller observable phenomena to dissect and study forever.
cool stuff...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
True , it's a forum for debate, but lacking personal face to face contact. Typed communications are easy to misinterpret and can easily offend.Being pointedly nice to people is one way of avoiding this.
Also, I duno about you, but I come here to have fun, and smileys are good for that. I agree that liking someone does not make them right.
You might not get lonely at work, but I do. Being right at the expense of being liked is not much fun either, though, so to come back on topic, maybe that has something to do with 'Scientism" being despised, or equivalent to an insult.
Science IS concerned with being right, whether or not people like the outcome. Often they don't and since they can't fight teh facts, they shoot the messenger instead.
we're friends debating. of course we say hello or other things to recognise a friend entering the room (or debate). politeness is not banned from debates. it's encouraged.
This is where your logic goes askew, to me.
If you assume to know what "god" means to the poster you are replying to, isn't that bad science?
No, cos it's not science at all. It's just an assumption. Not every thought or conversation is science. Now if he was to formulate or test a hypothesis based on that assumption, that would be bad science.
Just as we can only assume that how we have interpreted the past and the present is correct. We can test and theorize and experiment and document and challenge, but we CAN NEVER KNOW ABSOLUTELY that what we have accepted as fact so far is correct.
i agree. i'm kind of like a photography dude or whatever, so i do in fact know a little bit about the properties of light,... i was simply posing that question due to the line of conversation occurring between myself and Ahnimus, as i was hoping to show that even the most stringent, unbiased scientific experimentations often provide results that are anything but ubiquitous and/or "objective". thanks for the reply though, light is certainly one of the most wonderful and amazing facts of existence, even if we dont have much certifiable knowledge regarding the phenomenon.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
True , it's a forum for debate, but lacking personal face to face contact. Typed communications are easy to misinterpret and can easily offend.Being pointedly nice to people is one way of avoiding this.
Also, I duno about you, but I come here to have fun, and smileys are good for that. I agree that liking someone does not make them right.
You might not get lonely at work, but I do. Being right at the expense of being liked is not much fun either, though, so to come back on topic, maybe that has something to do with 'Scientism" being despised, or equivalent to an insult.
Science IS concerned with being right, whether or not people like the outcome. Often they don't and since they can't fight teh facts, they shoot the messenger instead.
I agree in most part, I just don't have the luxury of time to sift through garbage posts to find the actual responses all the time. And the smilies give me a headache
Yesterday there was one post by Rats of Multa that was an entire page of smilies, my computer locked up and when it did display a sharp pain went through my eye through my visual system and into my frontal lobe.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree in most part, I just don't have the luxury of time to sift through garbage posts to find the actual responses all the time. And the smilies give me a headache
Yesterday there was one post by Rats of Multa that was an entire page of smilies, my computer locked up and when it did display a sharp pain went through my eye through my visual system and into my frontal lobe.
would you mind citing this post, i tend to have serious doubts about your truthiness now -- that is if your frontal lobes wont implode.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
No, cos it's not science at all. It's just an assumption. Not every thought or conversation is science. Now if he was to formulate or test a hypothesis based on that assumption, that would be bad science.
You're still assuming (or acknowledging) some knowledge of what "god" is.
Corroboration. Science is very systematic and weens out false claims. Personal opinion or perspective does nothing of the sort. It's complete nonsense.
Ah corroboration! How STUPID of me not to have seen that!
Science does not ween out false claims and is not systematic in a lot of cases. In a lot of cases science is exactly personal opinion and perspective AND it's all about trial and error. Nothing to do with some greater mental capacity, which you seem to be advocating. Science is people working toward an answer and finding like minded people to support that outcome.
NOT that different to religion in that respect I have to say at this point.
... and are you psychic to jump in when your name is mentioned?
I was wondering this very same thing. It looks like metsy has an interest in scientism...or science....or something. Either way, he appeared on cue, as though somehow connected to Ahnimus............
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
well thanks a hell of a lot. has it been that long?
so what's your opinion about all this science talk? and are you psychic to jump in when your name is mentioned?
dude its be at least year if not more. my take on this whole science is hey whatever u believe in and makes u happy and get by in life, is cool with me.yes iam psychic
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
interesting. So are you saying he acknowledge that god at least exists as a concept? Or are you saying something else.
I'm saying, if he were true to "scientism" he wouldn't debate "god" like he does. I've observed, when he does, it is under the assumption he knows what "god" is. That's not good science.
I'm saying, if he were true to "scientism" he wouldn't debate "god" like he does. I've observed, when he does, it is under the assumption he knows what "god" is. That's crappy science.
i agree. if he were talking against gays he would be called a homophobe. maybe he's a divinephobe? he talks about God more than anyone on this board.
I was able to predict the lie in every attempt. It's not being psychic, it's just not guessing.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i agree. i'm kind of like a photography dude or whatever, so i do in fact know a little bit about the properties of light,... i was simply posing that question due to the line of conversation occurring between myself and Ahnimus, as i was hoping to show that even the most stringent, unbiased scientific experimentations often provide results that are anything but ubiquitous and/or "objective". thanks for the reply though, light is certainly one of the most wonderful and amazing facts of existence, even if we dont have much certifiable knowledge regarding the phenomenon.
Actually the question got me thinking about a few things...it's helps personal understanding to try explaining something out loud.
Right now I'm waiting to hear about the Higgs Boson at CERN. The Large Hadron Collider is due to start up this November. It's supposed to answer the question on what is the origin of mass. They're also going to be able to observe and study black holes.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I agree in most part, I just don't have the luxury of time to sift through garbage posts to find the actual responses all the time. And the smilies give me a headache
Yesterday there was one post by Rats of Multa that was an entire page of smilies, my computer locked up and when it did display a sharp pain went through my eye through my visual system and into my frontal lobe.
Fair enough !! Not to be pedantic or anything, but if a pain travelled through your visual system, then it wound up in your occipital lobe.
Being pedantic, the pain was actually from spasm of your occular constrictor muscle ( which I can't remember teh correct name for now)and travelled through the ophthalmic nerve, not the optic nerve.
NOw, since you did find my RELEVANT post in teh garbage, how about a response to what I said about shooting teh messenger. BTW, I was a high-school drop-out too, but never learned to type.
This is where your logic goes askew, to me.
If you assume to know what "god" means to the poster you are replying to, isn't that bad science?
I have an idea they aren't talking about Spinoza's God or Einstein's God. They are talking about their personal God.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I swear Jeanie, 90% of your posts are "I like you" "Your cool" and while it's very empowering, and I'm sure you make great friends. Can you like PM them or something? I've said this to people that say similar things about me, this is a forum for reasoned debate, it's not Lavalife and liking someone doesn't give any more credibility to what they are saying.
Ah, so it's ok for you to treat this place like lavalife when it suits you but it's not ok for me to agree with someone and make positive comment?
How subjective of you. And whenever you are ready to have REASONED debate I'm ready. BUT if tossing around insults and being patronizing is the way we are going to go today, then fine, bring it on. IF YOU MUST.
Fair enough !! Not to be pedantic or anything, but if a pain travelled through your visual system, then it wound up in your occipital lobe.
Being pedantic, the pain was actually from spasm of your occular constrictor muscle ( which I can't remember teh correct name for now)and travelled through the ophthalmic nerve, not the optic nerve.
NOw, since you did find my RELEVANT post in teh garbage, how about a response to what I said about shooting teh messenger. BTW, I was a high-school drop-out too, but never learned to type.
I'm not sure I know the question. The cliche is open to interpretation and may not apply to every situation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
where have you been? i wondered the connection too.
nice to see you again.
A photon is a piece of matter of a particular size that vibrates in space and time at a certain frequency. Just like every other piece of matter in the universe. Everything vibrates and moves around. Some are big...some are small and the scale both up and down in size is infinite.
Xrays and Gamma rays are also photons but they are smaller in size and vibrate faster. They are absolutely everywhere, and all the time, but they move too fast so we just can't see them with our eyes. We can trap them on Xray film though as proof that they were there (which explains why Xrays are reverse images). Neutrinos which are even smaller...are so small they can move seemingly right through matter itself. Every single second billions of neutrinos are zooming right through your body...we are being bathed by them inside and out. They keep on going and travel right through the earth itself for that matter.
Increasingly smaller particles relative to our perception move faster and faster...and faster...and faster to infinity. Not because they are going any faster than us...it is all to do with the perspective of the observer. Which is why I say that beyond quarks or Quantum magnitude study are infinitely smaller observable phenomena to dissect and study forever.
cool stuff...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
This is where your logic goes askew, to me.
If you assume to know what "god" means to the poster you are replying to, isn't that bad science?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
we're friends debating. of course we say hello or other things to recognise a friend entering the room (or debate). politeness is not banned from debates. it's encouraged.
No, cos it's not science at all. It's just an assumption. Not every thought or conversation is science. Now if he was to formulate or test a hypothesis based on that assumption, that would be bad science.
Just as we can only assume that how we have interpreted the past and the present is correct. We can test and theorize and experiment and document and challenge, but we CAN NEVER KNOW ABSOLUTELY that what we have accepted as fact so far is correct.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
i agree. i'm kind of like a photography dude or whatever, so i do in fact know a little bit about the properties of light,... i was simply posing that question due to the line of conversation occurring between myself and Ahnimus, as i was hoping to show that even the most stringent, unbiased scientific experimentations often provide results that are anything but ubiquitous and/or "objective". thanks for the reply though, light is certainly one of the most wonderful and amazing facts of existence, even if we dont have much certifiable knowledge regarding the phenomenon.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I agree in most part, I just don't have the luxury of time to sift through garbage posts to find the actual responses all the time. And the smilies give me a headache
Yesterday there was one post by Rats of Multa that was an entire page of smilies, my computer locked up and when it did display a sharp pain went through my eye through my visual system and into my frontal lobe.
well thanks a hell of a lot. has it been that long?
so what's your opinion about all this science talk? and are you psychic to jump in when your name is mentioned?
would you mind citing this post, i tend to have serious doubts about your truthiness now -- that is if your frontal lobes wont implode.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
You're still assuming (or acknowledging) some knowledge of what "god" is.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ah corroboration! How STUPID of me not to have seen that!
Science does not ween out false claims and is not systematic in a lot of cases. In a lot of cases science is exactly personal opinion and perspective AND it's all about trial and error. Nothing to do with some greater mental capacity, which you seem to be advocating. Science is people working toward an answer and finding like minded people to support that outcome.
NOT that different to religion in that respect I have to say at this point.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
I'm saying, if he were true to "scientism" he wouldn't debate "god" like he does. I've observed, when he does, it is under the assumption he knows what "god" is. That's not good science.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm SURE I probably imagined it!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
i agree. if he were talking against gays he would be called a homophobe. maybe he's a divinephobe? he talks about God more than anyone on this board.
Scientifically speaking, I think we may have an acute case of closet agnosticism on our hands.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
science can't measure or explain imagination. it's either real or it isn't. if you can't see or measure or hold it; it doesn't exist.
but then; sometimes thinking is the best way to travel.
Some of you may recall a "3 truths and a lie" thread on the AET some time ago.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=226466&highlight=truths
I was able to predict the lie in every attempt. It's not being psychic, it's just not guessing.
Oooh!! Spooky!! I can pick Mets on gabbly too!!!
That aura reader I saw the other weekend said I had psychic capabilities!!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Actually the question got me thinking about a few things...it's helps personal understanding to try explaining something out loud.
Right now I'm waiting to hear about the Higgs Boson at CERN. The Large Hadron Collider is due to start up this November. It's supposed to answer the question on what is the origin of mass. They're also going to be able to observe and study black holes.
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/AboutCERN/CERNFuture/WhatLHC/WhatLHC-en.html
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Fair enough !! Not to be pedantic or anything, but if a pain travelled through your visual system, then it wound up in your occipital lobe.
Being pedantic, the pain was actually from spasm of your occular constrictor muscle ( which I can't remember teh correct name for now)and travelled through the ophthalmic nerve, not the optic nerve.
NOw, since you did find my RELEVANT post in teh garbage, how about a response to what I said about shooting teh messenger. BTW, I was a high-school drop-out too, but never learned to type.
I have an idea they aren't talking about Spinoza's God or Einstein's God. They are talking about their personal God.
You do to. He's been on the gabbly every time I've seen you there.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ah, so it's ok for you to treat this place like lavalife when it suits you but it's not ok for me to agree with someone and make positive comment?
How subjective of you. And whenever you are ready to have REASONED debate I'm ready. BUT if tossing around insults and being patronizing is the way we are going to go today, then fine, bring it on. IF YOU MUST.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Whoa, you put yourself in good company there, bro. It's still bad science on your part.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm not sure I know the question. The cliche is open to interpretation and may not apply to every situation.