Lol, people that know me would think laughable the idea I'm a naturalist.
I've simply moved on to bigger questions.
ie were is the boundry of dead and living matter?
Is there a boundry?
How does the scientific knowledge base address such concepts? ( I discovered its a thought crime)
The question arose for me arose personally as an audiophile designing totally new products.
-
I've simply moved on to bigger questions.
ie were is the boundry of dead and living matter?
Is there a boundry?
How does the scientific knowledge base address such concepts? ( I discovered its a thought crime)
The question arose for me arose personally as an audiophile designing totally new products.
-
And???? Is Hawking even relevant?
No religious posts please.
-
This is only a requirement for those who have a strictly naturalistic world view.
I don't think that people with a "naturalistic" world view try to conflate every theory with life and its origin.
But this is a very common tactic used by people trying to deny science.
Moving goalposts is another distraction technique used by people to indulge their ignorant credulity.Anyway, you seem to have moved the goalposts by claiming that your real problem with SR is that it doesn't explain life?
Start with something much simpler: explain GPS without using SR or GR. That is, explain to us why GPS falls apart within a few minutes if the SR/GR corrections are not in place
Not gonna happen. Just hand waving and foot stomping.
Last edited:
And???? Is Hawking even relevant?
No religious posts please.
-
Irony is funny enough, your response to my criticism was pretty much your personal religious manifesto. I'm out, not that this was productive from the word go...
People sometimes do this to draw attention away from their failure to answer simpler questions.jfetter said:I've simply moved on to bigger questions.
I didn't say 'conflate'. I merely pointed out that the idea that science must explain life is only a requirement for those who believe that science is all there is; others may prefer or not prefer a science explanation for life, but they do not require it because they may have alternative explanations.Fast Eddie D said:I don't think that people with a "naturalistic" world view try to conflate every theory with life and its origin.
This thread is basically a waste of time.
I didn't say 'conflate'. I merely pointed out that the idea that science must explain life is only a requirement for those who believe that science is all there is; others may prefer or not prefer a science explanation for life, but they do not require it because they may have alternative explanations.
In that case, I have to agree with you.
This thread is basically a waste of time.
It's like the woo you might read under a youtube video.
I think it's ironic to post such drivel on a website so heavily populated by engineers and technicians. It's like posting flat earth on a cosmology website frequented by scientists and astronomers.
It's both amusing, and sad, to me.
New particle discovered
“sterile” neutrino
Evidence Found for a New Fundamental Particle | Quanta Magazine
“sterile” neutrino
Evidence Found for a New Fundamental Particle | Quanta Magazine
Probably most everyone has seen this. I'm positive that parts of the bill are classified.
Quantum Legislation Leaps Forward | American Institute of Physics
Quantum Legislation Leaps Forward | American Institute of Physics
Finally, an explanation of why CDs sound the way they do!
Muzak (Squire et al) is mentioned in this slide point link about music and plants.
Squire too had good results with New England Acacia trees.
On a hunch I listened to Prokofiev using Soviet tubes.
Good result there too but need to quantify.
https://soundhealingcenter.com/shrf/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Effect-of-Music-on-Plants-v2.pdf
Squire too had good results with New England Acacia trees.
On a hunch I listened to Prokofiev using Soviet tubes.
Good result there too but need to quantify.
https://soundhealingcenter.com/shrf/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Effect-of-Music-on-Plants-v2.pdf
Now if that isn't a Feynman diagram, I'll eat my hat!
For those who don't know, Dick Feynman ca. 1950 was the most gifted Physicist since Albert Einstein. And considerably funnier.
You can watch Dick Feynman in action here:
'The Character of Physical Law': Richard Feynman's Legendary Course Presented at Cornell, 1964 | Open Culture
What he lamented at the end of his second lecture is we find Humankind so interesting. A rare bitter moment. But hey, everybody hurts.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- Bob and Alice