|
Grex > Science > #1: Welcome to the Science conference, first edition | |
|
| Author |
Message |
russ
|
|
Welcome to the Science conference, first edition
| 
Aug 15 21:47 UTC 1996 |
Welcome to the Grex Science conference, first edition.
My vision of this conference is to provide a gathering place
for discussions and information about the natural sciences
(including physics, biology, chemistry and astronomy),
mathematics, engineering, skeptical inquiry, and related
subjects. Pointers to information sources, including URL's,
are welcome and may be condensed for reference.
We start with the discussions about Mars and space technology.
Have at it!
|
| 86 responses total. |
birdlady
|
|
response 1 of 86:
|
Aug 17 14:47 UTC 1996 |
Don't tell me I'm actually the first one here... =)
Well, I'm an English major, but I'll *try* to keep up. Maybe I'll actually
learn something. <g> Biology and Astronomy are my areas, so I'll see you
there!
|
srw
|
|
response 2 of 86:
|
Aug 17 19:26 UTC 1996 |
We're glad you're heer. Keep us honest.
I'm interested in all of the above, and also Geology, Meteorology,
Paleontology, and Cosmology. I'll be ubiquitous in this conference, I'm sure.
thanks, Russ, for pressing for it.
..
|
popcorn
|
|
response 3 of 86:
|
Sep 4 07:11 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 86:
|
Feb 28 08:47 UTC 1997 |
Russ, would you please link the "other" cloning item, and the asteroid
impact item, from agora to here? Thanks!
|
russ
|
|
response 5 of 86:
|
Mar 1 04:03 UTC 1997 |
You'll have to give me the item numbers, I have no time to go looking.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 86:
|
Mar 3 22:05 UTC 1997 |
Cloning is agora 86, and Asteroids is agora 87.
|
bon
|
|
response 7 of 86:
|
Apr 4 14:47 UTC 1997 |
I am interested in Astrology , Thanks Russ ..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 86:
|
Apr 6 19:19 UTC 1997 |
Astrology? Science? There is a Pseudo item that would be good for astrology.
|
russ
|
|
response 9 of 86:
|
Apr 8 02:00 UTC 1997 |
Re #7: Astrology is not a science. We could discuss the reasons why
at considerable length, but chief among them is that the predictions
made using, e.g. horoscopes are no better than chance. Even astrologers
don't agree what various configurations of planets and stars mean; just
compare a few newspaper astrologers and see.
The use of astrology is to give people some nice words from a kindly
authority figure and make them feel better, but those with real troubles
would be better served by spending the time and money on sessions with
trained and certified therapists. The claimed influence of the stars
does have one effect, I'm sure. It even has a name: placebo.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 86:
|
Apr 8 05:20 UTC 1997 |
The "various configurations of planets and stars" mean that Newtonian
physics is pretty good, since it is able to predict them all with great
accuracy. THrow in relativety, and the predictions are even better.
|
i
|
|
response 11 of 86:
|
Apr 10 23:34 UTC 1997 |
Astrology is generally inexpensive, harmless, and entertaining. If not
taken too seriously, it's reliably good in those respects. The only thing
that certified therapists are reliably good at is draining their patient's
wallets.
Which is not to say that consulting the stars is a good way to deal with
manic-depressive disorders, just that clinical psychology is a primitive and
unreliable technology. Reading the horoscopes is certainly healthier than
reading the sports section of the paper.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 86:
|
Apr 11 06:32 UTC 1997 |
Well, I don't know. The sports section puts me to sleep; the horoscopes
make me nauseated at people's gullibility.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 13 of 86:
|
Apr 11 12:10 UTC 1997 |
I'd have to agree with that. I prefer the comic section, poor as it is.
|
russ
|
|
response 14 of 86:
|
Apr 19 23:45 UTC 1997 |
Amen to that.
When you consider that a belly laugh is supposed to be good medicine,
the comics are certainly better for one than the astrology columns.
|
argon
|
|
response 15 of 86:
|
Jun 12 08:48 UTC 1997 |
That's great idea, Russ. I was kneely interested
[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D
in astro-physics and i think i have got the right one.
|
b52
|
|
response 16 of 86:
|
Jul 4 18:42 UTC 1997 |
I agree with Rane that relativity coupled with Inertial Physics gives good
predictions. But it is NOT conclusive. As even these are approximations,
which we find correct in practice. BUT relativity theory fails at the
Black hole! This is called singularity. So there is no science which is
perfect. To discard Astrology (you may call it a science or not!) will
mean that we are shutting doors on ourself. A good scientist always
keeps all avenues for information open. Because what we know so far is really
far from absolute truth. It's just relative to oneself.
For e.g.: We use Zero everyday but never find it's existance in nature.
So can we have a broader outlook towards science? & Non-science?
|
drew
|
|
response 17 of 86:
|
Jul 5 17:35 UTC 1997 |
Relativity still produces answers close enough to observation to be useful,
in situations which it addresses. Astrology produces vague answers at best,
and often answers not in agreement with observation.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 86:
|
Jul 6 18:44 UTC 1997 |
I don't "discard" astrology - I ignore it. It is not worthy of even study
UNTIL it produces an unexpected prediction new to science that is subsequently
confirmed and shown to have arisen in astrological precepts.
What's wrong with "zero"? It arises in nature in exactly the same manner any
other number arises in nature.
|
b52
|
|
response 19 of 86:
|
Jul 6 19:44 UTC 1997 |
Well, Curl (if I may call you so?) can you give me an example of "zero""
found in nature? Like you can se there is "one" tree with 'two" branches.
If humans had never studied something not worthy of study UNTIL it produced
something which they could undestand given the knowledge of their times,
then we won't have reached where we are now! As the history confirms,
the guy who got something to show the people which they could understand
got acclaim, as opposed to the one who couldn't explain his ideas as
effectively
to the public. But basically both were dreamers at some stage.
So the point I want to make is that we shouldn't let our prejudices
decide the information flowing into us.
Finally , I am not a pro-astrology kinda guy or something. I hold just mild
curiosity about it. The idea is not to let inflow of data be hampered by
previously constituted ideosyncrises.
I'm game even if you add astrology or don't!
|
valerie
|
|
response 20 of 86:
|
Jul 6 19:52 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 86:
|
Jul 7 05:23 UTC 1997 |
I didn't say don't study astrology. I said *I* won't study astrology. There
are thousands of (misguided, imo) folks studying astrology. When *they* come
up with something that fits my criteria, I'll look at it. I'm not biased
against astrology - it just strikes me as stupid as (say) reading tea leaves.
Cut down that one tree, and you have zero tree. One can certainly "see" an
absence. After all, you see that one tree by also "seeing" the absence of a
second tree.
|
kamdhenu
|
|
response 22 of 86:
|
Jul 14 20:03 UTC 1997 |
Hi, Guys
I couldn't help but noticing this intresting topic of "zero"
If you have zero tree , what do we mean by nothing?
Why is it that there is zero tree ? Why not zero bird?
So actually zerocan't be associated with anything.[B
Becouse zero does not mean nothing.
So zero can't be associated to trees or birds etc. the way we can associate
other numbers.
It does not point to a definative identity.
What does pur space contain , ZERO or NOTHING?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 86:
|
Jul 14 23:44 UTC 1997 |
You are confused. An "identity" excludes zero by definition. But you
can still have zero of anything (except death and taxes....).
|
srw
|
|
response 24 of 86:
|
Jul 15 05:00 UTC 1997 |
Are you asserting that zero trees is different than zero birds?
It seemd that kamdhenu is implicitly assuming that they are different.
I also question the distinction between zero and nothing.
|