Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
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
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
That's a refutation of quantum computing in a Universe which operates according to ''ES'' laws. laugh
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
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
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
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
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 sham

But is is funny too

e :p s

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
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
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
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
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
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 smile

I am MS in the theoretical physics... Let's see where it places you, the criticist from your quotation laugh laugh laugh

ES

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
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
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
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
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
yes.mr.patriot.pls.shut.up.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Sparky,
I can handle it. Take it easy.

"Amaranth"

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
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
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
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
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
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 cool s

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline
Senior Member
Offline
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
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
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
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
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
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
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.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
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
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
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.

Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5