Sounds a treat to me, its more than a lot of people can manage out there, even without miscommunicating 
Skydiving for everybody!?!?!? 😀
Everybody out of the plane!
Laurie Anderson ('From The Air'- Her 'Big Science' album)
"..There is no Pilot..."
Arrg. Ok. Why not. More monkey wrenches:
I did it for the sheer investigation of it's validity. I dove deep, for about 4-5 years ...deep into Astrology. Studied at about 6-8 hours a day. 5-7 days a week. And it turns out as it always does, for those who investigate it deeply. I am now a competent Astrologer. That path of the multiple-disciplinarian.
It is valid. Far more correct than it is wrong. Far, far, far more. But it is a deep and complex art. The mother and father of all science, philospohy, psychology, mathematics, astronomy, arts, record, etc. The birth point of it all.
No shallow investigation will do. Those who investigate it deeply - will be profoundly struck by that perfect validity. Frightening. But only for those on the outside of it.
It is misunderstood and attacked. It brings more to the table, than it takes, by a long shot. It then presents itself as a puzzle.
Question...always.
Exactly like action at a distance, in many ways. Not exactly so, but definitely related. A puzzle it is. But first one must personally get past the understanding of it's validity..before one can begin to puzzle it out.
Once again, all tied in - all tied together.
Everybody out of the plane!
Laurie Anderson ('From The Air'- Her 'Big Science' album)
"..There is no Pilot..."
Arrg. Ok. Why not. More monkey wrenches:
I did it for the sheer investigation of it's validity. I dove deep, for about 4-5 years ...deep into Astrology. Studied at about 6-8 hours a day. 5-7 days a week. And it turns out as it always does, for those who investigate it deeply. I am now a competent Astrologer. That path of the multiple-disciplinarian.
It is valid. Far more correct than it is wrong. Far, far, far more. But it is a deep and complex art. The mother and father of all science, philospohy, psychology, mathematics, astronomy, arts, record, etc. The birth point of it all.
No shallow investigation will do. Those who investigate it deeply - will be profoundly struck by that perfect validity. Frightening. But only for those on the outside of it.
It is misunderstood and attacked. It brings more to the table, than it takes, by a long shot. It then presents itself as a puzzle.
Question...always.
Exactly like action at a distance, in many ways. Not exactly so, but definitely related. A puzzle it is. But first one must personally get past the understanding of it's validity..before one can begin to puzzle it out.
Once again, all tied in - all tied together.
Too many people throwing stones from glass houses....
Either you have broken the speed limit before, or you have never driven a car...
Either you have broken the speed limit before, or you have never driven a car...
Stones? Nah, too inefficient. Set up the audio system and vibrate the entire structure to shatter!! 
😀
😀Me audiophile. No stereo in car, ever. Hole in dash instead. Had to listen to crappy car, in case it was about to break.
Hum and sing Stones for 800 miles.
Save hearing for extreme concert abuse.
Me Pink Floyd fan. Listen to whiney Roger Waters complain, scream, and rail against-whatever.
Does that suprise anyone? I think not.
Where's your precognition? You should have known that. 😀
Smack self in head now.
Jan: No politics for me. They'd shoot me on the steps, like Huey Long.
Hum and sing Stones for 800 miles.
Save hearing for extreme concert abuse.
Me Pink Floyd fan. Listen to whiney Roger Waters complain, scream, and rail against-whatever.
Does that suprise anyone? I think not.
Where's your precognition? You should have known that. 😀
Smack self in head now.
Jan: No politics for me. They'd shoot me on the steps, like Huey Long.
I've not learnt a lot here (though I have learnt from those who have stayed away from hostility) , but it has confirmed that we all have our own holes which we like to crawl into.
Unfortunately KBK you suffer all to much from the cross that all mystics have to bare. Their communication always sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.
Flat earthers just can't see the earth is round, and getting rounder by the day.
I'am trying to back down from this thread, because its all stress and little gain, maybe you (KBK) should do the same.
Shoog
Unfortunately KBK you suffer all to much from the cross that all mystics have to bare. Their communication always sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.
Flat earthers just can't see the earth is round, and getting rounder by the day.
I'am trying to back down from this thread, because its all stress and little gain, maybe you (KBK) should do the same.
Shoog
Res ipsa loquitur.
Honestly, it's not so much being a maniac as being more than willing to spout off endlessly without even basic knowledge of what he's talking about. I hope you've found it, at least, entertaining.
This statement and quote is nothing new from you. Can't you find any better material? Material which pertains?john curl said:
It is both entertaining as well as informative. I've lectured and toured about 3500 visitors here, from grade school to nobel laureates, and the range of questions and level is astounding. The kids are the best, as they are about the age of my two youngest, so I can understand what they know and how they know it. (it also helps to be a kid at heart). On occasion, I have to address the statements and questions of those like KBK and Curl, questions born out of a lack of knowledge. Given a long history of these type of people, it is trivial to remain unemotionally involved while assuaging concerns or gently correcting their misunderstandings.
What is also fun, is meeting and engaging the full range of people..
Kevin's unable to engage in the topics he presents as proof of some agenda, so diverts and posts long philisophical wanderings, remaining clear of a technical discussion. He's a good man..a good man knows his own limitations. (Harry).
KBK said:
Anybody say Nostrodamos?
KBK said:
I have not stated such.
I stated that action at a distance does not sit well. There are many things in E/M theory that do not sit well with me. Propagation of e/m at lightspeed requires the magnetic storage of the wave be equal to the electric field storage. That does not sit well with me, but it is inviolate in free media, in vacuum, and in transmission lines. Alas, that is also a topic you will be unable to carry.
KBK said:
Were there any other casualties in the explosion? You know, the one at the physics thesaurus factory? Your paragraph is a meaningless conglomeration of scientific words.
What he has stated is meaningless, out of context, and useless in the discussion..merely cheerleading. In this, he is very consistent.KBK said:
Cheers, John
I'll disagree again- John Curl's material has been VERY pertinent. He has illustrated tirelessly that in science, one's standing, prominence, and reputation mean nothing- the bottom line for acceptance or rejection is evidence. After all, the entire physics establishment was shaken up in a few months by an unknown Jew* working as an assistant patent examiner in Switzerland.
*Sociological background: Before Einstein, Jews were nearly entirely absent from physics. The field was totally dominated at that time by the Germans and the British.
The point is that science can investigate everything, but unfortunately it chooses to have selective blinkers about some things, and then claim they must be impossible. Of course some brave scientist will smash this concensus eventually.
Shoog
Shoog
Whoopee, I've finally found something useful in this thread!
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard Feynman
Thank you kindly psych&sound.
And an honorary mention to pinkmouse for the Rutherford quote (which has got me into trouble before now). But didn't Rutherford also say (early 1940s) "The energy of the atom is a puny thing." Whoops.
Honestly, if you don't like the evolution of science but want certainties, adopt Roman Catholicism. Science is a model of the world, and for day-to-day purposes, the current model is pretty good. I generally find good reasons for why the smoke was let out without having to hark back to phlogiston.
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard Feynman
Thank you kindly psych&sound.
And an honorary mention to pinkmouse for the Rutherford quote (which has got me into trouble before now). But didn't Rutherford also say (early 1940s) "The energy of the atom is a puny thing." Whoops.
Honestly, if you don't like the evolution of science but want certainties, adopt Roman Catholicism. Science is a model of the world, and for day-to-day purposes, the current model is pretty good. I generally find good reasons for why the smoke was let out without having to hark back to phlogiston.
SY said:
You are indeed correct. As is John.
My apologies to you John.
Cheers, John
ps..disagree again??que?
In broad terms, science is there to rule out chance. Comte even ruled out interpretation. Hence we got the Pruitt-Igoe housing complex in St. Louis, Missouri. It was built in 1954 and demolished in 1972 after being condemned as uninhabitable, failing to fill the needs of its residents. This many say marks the official start of the postmodernism. Others insist we entered the postmodernism in the 1950s.
Some scientists and engineer-types lack vision and imagination (and, in some cases, empathy and the ability to relate to human beings). They are bores, nay-sayers who have nothing to offer the world. They seem to be the ones winning the Nobel Prize--an insult to the world if there ever was one. But they are not the only representatives for science.
Imagine a portable device that kids can carry with them wherever they go that can be used for reading, writing, math, music, drawing, and fun and games. Imagine it contains thousands of articles, letters, notes, poems, recipes, drawings, diagrams, dynamic simulations, animations, games and anything else they might want to have access to and being able to alter. Imagine that this device allowing images of at least the same quality as that of printed material and the sound as good as that of a hi-fi system and that you have the same control over it as you have over a musical instrument.
This device the scientists, sociologist and anthropologists at the Learning Research Group at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center imagined in late 1960-early 1970s.
We can only speculate about what the people at the Philips and Sony labs imagine today.
Edit: Missed a "what." Now it should be fine, I hope.
Some scientists and engineer-types lack vision and imagination (and, in some cases, empathy and the ability to relate to human beings). They are bores, nay-sayers who have nothing to offer the world. They seem to be the ones winning the Nobel Prize--an insult to the world if there ever was one. But they are not the only representatives for science.
Imagine a portable device that kids can carry with them wherever they go that can be used for reading, writing, math, music, drawing, and fun and games. Imagine it contains thousands of articles, letters, notes, poems, recipes, drawings, diagrams, dynamic simulations, animations, games and anything else they might want to have access to and being able to alter. Imagine that this device allowing images of at least the same quality as that of printed material and the sound as good as that of a hi-fi system and that you have the same control over it as you have over a musical instrument.
This device the scientists, sociologist and anthropologists at the Learning Research Group at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center imagined in late 1960-early 1970s.
We can only speculate about what the people at the Philips and Sony labs imagine today.
Edit: Missed a "what." Now it should be fine, I hope.
Having known, worked for, and done pub crawls with several Nobelists in science, I would take serious issue with that. These were some brilliant, imaginative, and humorous fellows.
SY said:
Yup.
EC, I believe he did. Oh well, we all have our off days.
phn, you can hardly blame scientists for bad architecture. As always, science provides the theories, it's when laymen get their hands on them that it all goes wrong. 😉
I'am glad that isn't true.
I wish we had a few of them on this thread, they would probably have some real insights as to where science might be leading us - but possably not.
Most scientists seem to be engineers who lack the vision to say anything radically new.
Of course your've got to respect their engineering skill.
Shoog
I guess you never worked in a research setting, otherwise you would not make those nonsensical statements.
If you mean scientists are very careful when selecting their topic of research - of course they are, as they are either funded through public sources or through industry grants.
That means they are accountable to their sponsor, and the topic of their research has to be defensible.
Some of the topics raised here have not a shred of evidence of them actually even being a phenomenon worth investigating - except statement to that effect, and belong more to the realm of believe where falsification is not possible, and therefore simply not a concern of science.
Because of the latter there will not be any merging of science and any kind of spirituality soon, or ever - maybe between some scientists and that, but not of science as an investigative tool and a methodology following certain rules - independent peer review being one.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.