0 members (),
707
guests, and
2
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Mung: I haven't met an old Abelour, Ardbeg, Glendronach I didn't like. Though I do have a 1975 Glenfiddich waiting for the right occassion.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
Originally posted by Count Iblis II: That's a refutation of quantum computing in a Universe which operates according to ''ES'' laws. Which are the laws of Nature. The nitwits that came up with quantum computing sham, did not know that the measurement takes time. Whuch is the cornerstone of quantum theory. ES
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
extrasense:
Which parts of your post are intended as serious commentary and which as sarcasm? Is the sentence beginning with "Which" intended to be a question?
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
Originally posted by DA Morgan: Which parts of your post are intended as serious commentary and which as sarcasm? I have made my point, at the freescience forum. QuantumComputing is a shamBut is is funny too e :p s
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32 |
Sham or what ever, the idea of storing permanent data in as small a box as a quantum trap is silly. Any energy disruption will flip bits if powerful enough. In space we use multiple computers because cosmic rays are constantly getting though the lead shields and corrupting memory. Imagine what a single cosmic ray could do to a tightly packed "box" of quantum traps. A quantium computer would be highly unreliable and would require multiple redundencies. So forget about one the mass of the earth, pull in Jupiter instead.
Sparky
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
extrasense:
You have no point. You haven't the education or intelligence required to critique the subject. Commenting on that which you don't understand reminds me of more than a few choice quotations. Here's the one that applies best:
Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves ~ Brendan Behan
Except in your case you've never seen it done, you have no clue how they do it, but you are also unable to do it yourself.
Your knowledge of QM wouldn't have passed muster in 1905 much less 2005.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
Originally posted by DA Morgan: extrasense: You haven't the education or intelligence required to critique the subject. Heh, why not you would go to your favorite professor of physics or two, and you together point out what is incorrect with my refutation I am MS in the theoretical physics... Let's see where it places you, the criticist from your quotation ES
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
HI GUYS ONE PLACE WHERE IT HELPS TO BE AN INDIAN IS IN AVOIDING THE TRAPPINGS OF RELIGION WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE. I FIND CHRISTIANITY ONE BIG NASTY THING - TO POKE ITS *** INTO SCIENCE.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32 |
Dear Patriot, there are many religions (phylosophies) that value science. And there are many different kinds of Indians including American Indians who worship the great spirit. Welcome to our website, and please use lower case. Upper case is used for shouting, and I don't think you meant to shout.
Sparky
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
yes.mr.patriot.pls.shut.up.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Sparky, I can handle it. Take it easy.
"Amaranth"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Indian:
1. Don't shout. We really don't care.
2. Given that your ancestors, up until a little over a hundred years ago (had yet to enter the iron age) I'd not be so quick to proclaim any level of superiority.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I haven't read all the discussion in this thread. But I will try to answer the question: Have Scientists Failed Humanity? REP:In all probablity if you are not dead then you must thank Science and Scientists.Sincerely. With so many Ceasarians I think Science has already taken the role of giving Birth to Humans.Test tube babies owe their existence to Science.The system is not only taking care of humans but also producing them!!Who knows tomorrow Sceince may actually help us to create the kind of child we want to have...It will be like configuring your own toyota. I know there are destructive aspects as well.. but it will hard to imagine that Science will try to hijack humanity...thats stupid and irrational.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427 |
Originally posted by dkv: hard to imagine that Science will try to hijack humanity...thats stupid and irrational. You bet it is trying. The thing is that science is going deranged. Diod array and quantum computing are just tip of the iceberg. e s
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127 |
"I know there are destructive aspects as well.. but it will hard to imagine that Science will try to hijack humanity...thats stupid and irrational." -DKV
Surely you can not be serious. Science is a human construct for understanding and manipulating our universe, as such the application of science, by madmen (irrational; possibly stupid but probably not) is a reality. A scientist can even have good intentions and fall into corruption for monetary success (for example), or have his or her ideas adopted by a malevolent person (or group of people) in order to cause harm. Technology has and will be used for purposes of terrorism, torture, oppresion and warfare etc... Of course I am responding to your term of "hijack" as to mean altering the course of science to perform harm to our world. Humanity needs science; it is its lifeline, but it will not (and has not) always be(en) used to benefit the whole of society. This also assumes that science has a moral goal to benefit society. There is a clear distinction between understanding science in order to further the success of humanity and using science in order to understand reality. You can adopt the position that science only has to explain that which is real (our physical universe and the interaction of matter) and has no moral responsibility. Fine. You make a hypothesis, you make observations, you analyze your data, you make conclusions based upon facts. DKV, science alone does just that- sorts out the facts. What scientists, politicians, the militarys or terrorists do with science is another realm. Should there be morality in science, I think so yes. But who is to say what morality is to be formatted after? These questions are not so clearly understood.
When you dabble into sociology or psychology it gets murky...observations in those two arenas are more recalcitrant to "nail down". Further, is sociology or psychology science at all? Why are they referred to as "soft science"? Do they not have methods of theory, discovery and analysis? What exactly is a "hard science"? Does that imply that it is more comprehendible or concrete? I do not know. Sincerely,
"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119 |
Originally posted by Planko: Have Scientists Failed Humanity? Some have, but many scientists have not. Galileo Galilei, famous for his scientific achievements in astronomy, mathematics, and physics and infamous for his controversy with the church was, in fact, a devout Catholic who saw not a divorce of religion and science but only a healthy marriage: "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word." ~Galileo Galilei
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
So the reason Galileo didn't fail humanity is because he remained a devout catholic?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119 |
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend: So the reason Galileo didn't fail humanity is because he remained a devout catholic? IMO, yes. Many of the great scientists, such as Amp?re, Bacon, Boltzmann, Copernicus, Fermi, Lavoisier, Mendel, Pascal, Pasteur, Pauli, Poincar?, Schr?dinger and Volta realised early on, just like Galilei did, that the Father of religion is the Father of science. The Father's great experiment is Universal (Catholic) Humanity.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The Father's great experiment is Universal (Catholic) Humanity. That sounds like an unjustified religious statement in a science forum.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
Those people were religious because they were raised in it. They were drowning it every second of their lives.
There are numerous legitimate ways in which Galileo did well by humanity - not one of them includes his faith, which was essentially a no-op.
You put on an artificial criteria of success. He was plenty successful by real criteria without adding on the lame and irrelevant stuff.
Galileo humanized science. He wrote in the Italian vernacular. He worked tirelessly. He did his homework. He *UNDERSTOOD* what he was trying to refute. His religion saved his life - had he not been catholic he would likely have been put to death by the close-minded, religionist thugs.
|
|
|
|
|