Science
- Started
- Last post
- 1,010 Responses
- utopian0
NASA: Observing a Gigantic Solar Eruption
- feel0
actually maybe this week
http://www.iflscience.com/space/…
- feel0
nasa is testing this next week
- monospaced0
That's just an illusion. Perfectly projected by satan himself, from hell which is just a few planets over, onto a screen to trick astronomers. Science bitches. Believe.
- Idiot. Everybody knows hell is other people.Morning_star
- What does that even mean, and how is that possible if Satan is making fossils and stars look old?monospaced
- I like Satan, he's very misunderstood. Lucifer on the other hand is a right cunt.Morning_star
- wordmonospaced
- utopian0
Scientists have just discovered the "Godzilla of Earths" -- a new type of huge and rocky alien world about 560 light-years from Earth.
- Doesn't exist, according to Catholic Churchukit2
- 17x the mass means 17x the gravity. Some crazy implications to that.sarahfailin
- Some dense motherfuckers must live there.wagshaft
- Is that how the math works sarahfailin? Direct 1:1 mass to gravity?monospaced
- i heard in a doc that if a rocky world was too big it would implode, didnt make much sensemoldero
- Yep. G=(m1*m2)/d^2 -- at least in newtonian gravitysarahfailin
- er, there's a gravitational constant in there too.sarahfailin
- Ya'll talking about shit you don't understand.wagshaft
- we understand it, actuallymonospaced
- unlike religious folk talking about good/evil and the afterlife and jeebus and shitemonospaced
- Me thinks one would not be able to move on this massive planet. Would require some serious skeletons or goo.wagshaft
- or primarily aquatic life-- there's deepsea animals able to live under tremendous pressures on earth.sarahfailin
- supermanbrandelec
- krypton, that little red planet is bloodtonmoldero
- Morning_star0
Scientists create Quantum processing icluding action at a distance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scienc…- Coming in 2030: Apple CEO Dr Dre presents the iQuarkukit2
- scarabin0
- unfortunately, science is corrupt so disregard all of thisscarabin
- GMO's are good for you and will solve all our food problems...yurimon
- it's true, science is a blight on mankind. we should go back to pooping in caves and eating dead things we findscarabin
- the ancients knew all along, because they are so oldscarabin
- absolutely fucking amazing what we are unlocking...and it's not because we have our heads in the sand_niko
- Its is amazing but its not all to our benefit as it seems. Scientific utopian ideasyurimon
- http://media.tumblr.…scarabin
- Like I'm going to be effected by a young dude who thinks he knows it all but hasnt lived enough yet.yurimon
- i had more sense by the time i was ten than you do nowscarabin
- < Spoken like every young prick, though out history ever no exception. you will see if you are really smart some years down.yurimon
- says the guy that called people "tards"hereswhatidid
- I dont do it from ego...yurimon
- yurimon, you have some nerve calling people stupid when you clearly struggle to write a coherent sentencemonospaced
- lolscarabin
- ukit20
They are theorizing about stuff that goes to the limit of what we currently understand. 100 years ago scientists debated about the existence of the atom, and a lot of people thought that was a ridiculous theory, but eventually we got the evidence proving it was true.
So yeah a lot of it is theorizing that could be right or wrong, but I don't see how that's the same as religion. Religions are all based on books and stories that people came up with thousands of years ago, and there isn't any room for new theories or ideas, in fact they used to torture and execute people just for suggesting them :)
- Precisely. Science is he search for truth. Religion is like agreeing that we gave up long ago.monospaced
- Religion is also the search for truth but from a spiritual perspective.Morning_star
- Morning_star0
I watched that ^ video. I heard lots of different theories about 'nothing' and the start of the universe; some based on quantum physics, some based on multiple universes, some philosophical explanations, some based in traditional physics. The five scientists on the panel cold not agree on anything let alone a consistent demonstrable solution. Yet each of the scientists had faith in the validity of their particular theory even though it would contradict other explanations.
If you replaced each of the scientists with a representative from different faiths and asked them a similar question there would be an almost identical clash of ideas but from a theological perspective.
Given this particular scientific question all the answers were based on nothing more than belief.
- Just say that you want to believe in ghosts and magic and be done with it, please, you're killing this threadhereswhatidid
- < you got lots of main stream mombo jumbo stereotypes about magicyurimon
- fuck off with your "mainstream" bullshit, yurihereswhatidid
- Hey hereswhatidid, what do you think of that video? You know what an opinion is don't you?Morning_star
- My opinion is that you are completely incorrect in your definition of belief and how that relates to scientific knowledge.hereswhatidid
- None of those people have "faith" in their ideas. They have reached conclusions based on their own research. Faith is blindly believing something regardless of evidencehereswhatidid
- blindly believing in something regardless of the evidence for or against it.hereswhatidid
- Belief in a god creator is exactly the same as believing in a purely material explanation for the 'first cause'. Just because the belief falls under a science heading doesn't make it any more plausible.Morning_star
- falls under the heading 'science' doesn't make it any more plausible.
Morning_star - that is so wrong I'm not sure where to beginhereswhatidid
- Explain then. Treat me like the idiot you think I am. All you ever do is dismiss and bitch without explanation. I'm starting to think you know nothing other what you've heard from the cool atheist types.Morning_star
- you know nothing other what you've heard from the cool atheist types.Morning_star
- The difference between science and faith has been explained to you several times. It's a waste of a decent thread having to do that again.hereswhatidid
- Oh there's a surprise, no opinion, no insight again. You are an empty vessel quite suited to the 'biological machine' description.
I'll try to make myself clearer, the humans involved in science and religion exhibit the SAME behavior when faced with first cause type questions (watch the video). If you think that the label 'science' gives the debate any more insight or credibility when dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing...Morning_star - I'll try to make myself clearer, the humans involved in science and religion exhibit the SAME behavior when faced with first cause type questions (watch the video). If you think that the label 'science' gives the debate any more insight or credibility when dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star
- type questions (watch the video). If you think that the label 'science' gives the debate any more insight or credibility when dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star
- dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star
- very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star
- ukit20
- watched the whole thing, and the one from 2012. thanks.iCanHazQBN
- 2 hours? fuck ima have to put this on the telemoldero
- ukit20
If psychic powers are real like Dean Radin says, wouldn't this be pretty easy to demonstrate? Why would we need to be arguing over whether his experiments were peer reviewed, when you could just film someone levitating an object or predicting a future event?
- There are lots of experiments with peer reviewed results looking at Remote Viewing, Telekenetic Influence, Prediction, Placebo etc. The fact is that most of it is never considered due to the dogma of mainstream science.Morning_star
- Placebo etc. The fact is that most of it is never considered due to the dogma of mainstream science. Scientists fear the taboo of 'paranormal'.Morning_star
- of the paranormal.Morning_star
- yes, but aside from a proton acting randomly or not, there's no evidence for mind controlmonospaced
- What are the experiments supposed to show though?ukit2
- That telekinesis works but only on a micro level?ukit2
- are you really still insisting the placebo effect is an example of paranormal abilities?hereswhatidid
- No. Are you still insisting that this universe is purely materialistic.Morning_star
- I'm assuming you guys havent experience anything extra ordinary or havent met special peopleyurimon
- no, we just haven't been stupid enough to think they were beyond the natural lawmonospaced
- its part of natural law. Some people are more sensitive then other. like yourself. your consciousness.yurimon
- it like trying to take 30 gigpixel with a 1megapizel brainyurimon
- photo i meansyurimon
- Morning_star0
@mono
The results of those experiments are valid, peer reviewed and replicable - the things that you have said are the only things that count in science.
The interpretation of those results is worthy of further consideration but the results still show that consciousness has had an influence on a material systems.
Now you say that because it comes from the edges of science it's not worth consideration even though it ticks all of the boxes you require for validity.- but it's not a belief systemmonospaced
- Science is full of belief, probability and theory. All of which are supported with experimental results. For several weeks last year, the majority of the world BELIEVED that we'd found stuff that travelled faster than the speed of light.Morning_star
- several weeks last year, the majority of the world BELIEVED that we'd found stuff that travelled faster than the speed of light. Those people who reported this were reputable mainstream scientists. It just not as black and white as you're making it.Morning_star
- of light. Those people who reported this were reputable mainstream scientists. It just not as black and white as you're making it.Morning_star
- making it.Morning_star
- "Belief" is just a word that you can define in a lot of ways. What people are trying to say most of the time when they bring this up is that science relies on evidence and tests.ukit2
- bring this up is that science relies on evidence and tests rather than some a priori knowledge about the existence of god.ukit2
- of God. Which is important since the mind can be easily fooled as anyone who has taken drugs knows :)ukit2
- ^ My first post today links to the experimental results or evidence that shows consciousness has influenced a physical system.Morning_star
- Who mentioned God?Morning_star
- This thread is about comparing the scientific process to the blind belief in myths, such as religionmonospaced
- That's what the religion thread is about, no?Morning_star
- Besides you claimed that there is no evidence for paranormal phenomena. There is.
Morning_star - no, no there isn'tmonospaced
- also, to get an idea of what this thread is about, look at the first post and the following hundreds of postsmonospaced
- So your issue is that my posts aren't on topic?Morning_star
- Not if you're attempting to position science as a belief system.monospaced
- Science is a belief system. Check peer reviews and hypothesisdeathboy
- monospaced0
Also, the "peer reviewed" paper is by a guy who's a "scientist" at the Noetic Institute. That institute is, by definition, fringe science and is certainly not taken very seriously by peers in the field. Just sayin, since you thought you actually found something.
- The institute is on the Quackwatch list of questionable organisations.monospaced
- http://en.wikipedia.…monospaced
- if only you put that much effort in making apple a better brand..
//sGeorgesIV - hahahamonospaced
- Head of the Parapsychological Organization
http://archived.para…ukit2 - He's like one of the Ghostbustersukit2
- monospaced0
^ First, that is just a blog post of the 3rd publication or an experiment that AT BEST, is "consistent" with one approach/interpretation.
I quote them directly, "Note that consistency doesn't necessarily mean that von Neumann's approach is the only valid interpretation."
While it might be peer-reviewed and scientific, it's not conclusive by any stretch of the definition, and certainly would never, ever in any reality be used to support the claim that science is a belief system.
- Morning_star0
Peer reviewed experiments galore.
"Overall the evidence is consistent with von Neumann's proposal that consciousness is involved in the behavior of quantum systems."
- reanimate0
This is interesting article...many ‘herbivores’ are actually carnivores sometimes