My Physics Department has become a front for creationists.

[Sheepo]

God sent me from the future to troll Solaris.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Oh man I can't stand that. I have no problem with the average joe believing whatever he wants. But as soon as it enters the scientific realm any idea must pass a certain number of criteria. It really pisses me off when people do unscientific things such as attempting to dismantle a proven theory with mountains of mutually supportive evidence in an attempt to prove another theory. That is a logical fallacy, to prove their theory they need evidence. Which is the second problem I have with creationism. The pure lack of evidence. You should attend the talk and when they ask for questions as this..."Seeing as how science is based upon evidence and skepticism do you have any moral qualms about advocating a theory as science that is based on logical fallacies and lacks any evidence?"

 

[NeptuneUK]

Solaris, good form sir.

I too would respond in a similar manner if my physics department forwarded me emails full of such bullshit.

 

[Kadayi]

you seem to reply specifically to creationism (which is a religious concept as we know it for most of the part)

Actually I'm replying to retardness. The retardness of someone who is told one thing and never seeks to question it. Pvtryan talks about science as if it is sacrosanct which is actually the very opposite of what good science is all about, which is ongoing investigation, and the evolution of scientific models.

so wasting time, money and intellectual sanity arguing whether the earth is 6000 years old (which we already know for at least one century it's far older, proven with different methods) or not is perfectly acceptable and desired?
if you're high and have nothing better to do then in theory, yes. but in reality no.

I'm pretty sure I've already stated my personal position, so why you keep running back to ideas I don't remotely support and claiming that I somehow represent them seems faintly desperate. Do you have an argument against open debate that isn't ultimately an argument for dictatorial censorship at the end of the day or not? :dozey:

"*snip

Pretty much all of Genesis :dozey:

 

[PvtRyan]

Actually I'm replying to retardness. The retardness of someone who is told one thing and never seeks to question it. Pvtryan talks about science as if it is sacrosanct which is actually the very opposite of what good science is all about, which is ongoing investigation, and the evolution of scientific models.

Really? If that's true, then I'm sure you can quote me on it, right?

 

[Kadayi]

Really? If that's true, then I'm sure you can quote me on it, right?

You demonstrated the wholesale redundancy of your ideas by virtue of the fact that you equate the discussion of 'intelligent design' wholly as one promoting 'creationism' from the off rather than being a debate that could cover broader issues. You are the archetype of what Dan was eluding to when he talked about fundamentalism (closemindedness) and by that very fact, you go to fail straight away.

Now back to the cellar with you :dozey:

 

[PvtRyan]

You demonstrated the wholesale redundancy of your ideas by virtue of the fact that you equate the discussion of 'intelligent design' wholly as one promoting 'creationism' from the off rather than being a debate that could cover broader issues. You are the archetype of what Dan was eluding to when he talked about fundamentalism (closemindedness) and by that very fact, you go to fail straight away.

Now back to the cellar with you :dozey:

I take that as a "no, I can't quote you on it like you requested".

Look, it's very simple:

Intelligent design makes claims that can't be scientifically verified, so therefore you can't have a scientific debate about it. Not to mention that the whole concept of intelligent design was merely invented to get a foot between the door when creationism was thrown out of court.

 

[Sledgehammer]

Is there even any difference between intelligent design and creationism?

 

[Polaris]

Yes, intelligent design is for stupid people and creationism is for totally retared morons.

 

[Kadayi]

I take that as a "no, I can't quote you on it like you requested".

That's probably because I possess the ability like most intelligent people to read between the lines. That you never say directly 'all ni gga s must burn!!!' doesn't mean you can't be adjudged a racist through observation of behaviour, attitude and language. :dozey:

Intelligent design makes claims that can't be scientifically verified, so therefore you can't have a scientific debate about it. Not to mention that the whole concept of intelligent design was merely invented to get a foot between the door when creationism was thrown out of court.

It's all very good of you to keep running back to 'creationalism' again and again as a point of reference, but as I pointed out much earlier in this thread discussion of how the universe came to be pre-dates this seizure by the religious right. It's been the subject of discussion by the great minds of humanity for many years. Your inability to comprehend this simple truism is quite baffling tbh, as is your promotion of the idea that scientific debate can only be conducted if supported by 'evidence'. :dozey:

Surely if 'evidence' exists on a subject to support an assertion, then there is hardly room for debate on the subject because the assertion has been proven no? Fact of the matter is a lot of science is little more than theoretical conjecture with very little tangible evidence to support it, merely a group consensus that as theory it holds up well enough to be considered justified until replaced. As regards the the origins of the universe, there exists evidence to support the age and method creation, but nothing so far to understand the catalyst regarding its emergence. :dozey:

Yes, intelligent design is for stupid people and creationism is for totally retared morons.

A fine example of logic that demonstrates why the Czech Republic is little more than a 3rd world backwater. :dozey:

 

[PvtRyan]

That's probably because I possess the ability like most intelligent people to read between the lines. That you never say directly 'all ni gga s must burn!!!' doesn't mean you can't be adjudged a racist through observation of behaviour, attitude and language. :dozey:



It's all very good of you to keep running back to 'creationalism' again and again as a point of reference, but as I pointed out much earlier in this thread discussion of how the universe came to be pre-dates this seizure by the religious right. It's been the subject of discussion by the great minds of humanity for many years. Your inability to comprehend this simple truism is quite baffling tbh, as is your promotion of the idea that scientific debate can only be conducted if supported by 'evidence'. :dozey:

Surely if 'evidence' exists on a subject to support an assertion, then there is hardly room for debate on the subject because the assertion has been proven no? Fact of the matter is a lot of science is little more than theoretical conjecture with very little tangible evidence to support it, merely a group consensus that as theory it holds up well enough to be considered justified until replaced. As regards the the origins of the universe, there exists evidence to support the age and method creation, but nothing so far to understand the catalyst regarding its emergence. :dozey:



I fine example of logic that demonstrates why the Czech Republic is little more than a 3rd world backwater. :dozey:

Yes, I suppose you're right, that if you redefine 'science' to something else, then you could make it fit.

I like how the concept of 'science' as how the rest of the world defines it still manages to elude you though. Just because there is evidence on a subject that would seemingly support an assertion, does not mean the subject is "proven" (no such concept even exists outside of math, but I faintly remember arguing with you how math is "just arbitrary conventions made up by people") nor that debate is redundant. For example, does the evidence behind evolution support gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?

:dozey: :dozey: :dozey:

 

[Kadayi]

I like how the concept of 'science' as how the rest of the world defines it still manages to elude you though. Just because there is evidence on a subject that would seemingly support an assertion, does not mean the subject is "proven" (no such concept even exists outside of math, but I faintly remember arguing with you how math is "just arbitrary conventions made up by people") nor that debate is redundant.

LOL. How the rest of the world defines it? You do realise that the very term 'science' is about one of the most broad brush words going. Scientific method is little more than another term for marked study (and vise versa). More often than not theories come into existence well before they can actually be 'proven' (superstring theory being a prime example). Also I'm pretty sure (no scratch that, absolutely certain) I've never argued that mathematics was 'arbitrary', more that there are entire elements to it that exist purely as widely excepted conceits rather than tangibly demonstrable forces. Really try and avoid promoting mis-truths in future. :dozey:

For example, does the evidence behind evolution support gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?

Firstly I don't think there is sufficient evidence to argue for one over the other, nor given the diversity of species and climates that there exists a reason to assume that one needs to prevail over the other. :dozey:

But anyhows this is all well and good, but doesn't seem to actually form an argument for justifying dictatorial censorship over freedom of speech and thought. :dozey:

 

[Sledgehammer]

The sheer amount of :dozey: in this thread makes me sick.

 

[Kadayi]

The sheer amount of :dozey: in this thread makes me sick.

Your opinion is duly noted and duly ignored. :dozey: :naughty:

Joking aside though Sledge, none of these "OMG TEH creationists are invading!!!" numbnuts has actually come up with a convincing argument that justifies Dictatorial Censorship over Freedom of Speech & thought. If they had then they wouldn't be getting the :dozey:

That they haven't and yet persist with the 'But, but, but...TEH creationists are invading!!!" is also the reason why they will continue to get the :dozey:

 

[Evo]

I thought they were making the argument that creationist/intelligent design etc. ideas have no place being discussed in a scientific environment?

I don't believe anyone has said that people should in no way what so ever talk about creationism/intelligent design etc.

 

[Kadayi]

I thought they were making the argument that creationist/intelligent design etc. ideas have no place being discussed in a scientific environment?

I don't believe anyone has said that people should in no way what so ever talk about creationism/intelligent design etc.

The debate isn't part of the course curriculum, or mandatory it seems but something externally organised. It's a case of it being there if you wanted to go along (no different than a uni band sending around a 'we're having a gig ' email tbfh). The OP blew the whole thing grossly out of proportion (as usual) ('how dare they debate something I'm offended by'). So notions of 'they have no right to debate this' go out the window I'm afraid. Needless to say myriad band wagon jumpers have joined in to add their 2 cents, but none quite comprehending the absurdity of the original position.

I personally find the blanket statements regarding discussion of 'intelligent design' pretty ****ing amusing tbh as well, as if such debate has only existed since the religious right adopted it, where as the reality is Philosophers and academics have been considering the conundrum of existence for millennia.

 

[Evo]

The debate isn't part of the course curriculum, or mandatory but something externally organised. It's a case of it being there if you wanted to go along (no different than a band sending around an email tbfh). The OP blew the whole thing grossly out of proportion (as usual). So notions of 'they have no right to debate this' go out the window I'm afraid.

Yes something externally organised taking place in a scientific institute. Solaris was angry because (if I am interpreting this right) he feels that this stuff has no place what so ever in a scientific place, even if it is optional. Solaris' email may have been a bit strong, but so what?

 

[Kadayi]

Yes something externally organised taking place in a scientific institute. Solaris was angry because (if I am interpreting this right) he feels that this stuff has no place what so ever in a scientific place, even if it is optional. Solaris' email may have been a bit strong, but so what?

It's not unusual for controversial subjects or lecturers to be given air at universities, it provokes discussion and debate, and provides the attendees with an insight into the beliefs of others even if those conflict with their own, that they might not ordinarily be faced with directly (rather than second hand). To understand your enemy is never a bad thing. If you start trying to banish discussion, where do you stop?

OP should regard it as an opportunity, not an affront.

 

[Direwolf]

LOL. How the rest of the world defines it? You do realise that the very term 'science' is about one of the most broad brush words going. Scientific method is little more than another term for marked study (and vise versa). More often than not theories come into existence well before they can actually be 'proven' (superstring theory being a prime example).

For the record, and to avoid confusion of terms, a scientific idea that has been proposed but not supported in any way is a hypothesis, not a theory. To be a true theory (and some things referred to as "theories" are called such incorrectly) it must be supported by evidence.

 

[bbson john]

Seriously, Kadayi. Superstring theory proposes the existence of supersymmetry particles and extra dimension, wich can be tested by LHC in the future.

What do intelligent design proposed? And how can we test for it?

 

[xcellerate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

and then go from there.

 

[Raziaar]

Hey, I have a physics question.

I'm doing some physics studying right now... after doing some trigonometry & pre-calculus videos.

This guy is saying, "If you think about it, this vector motion can be composed into two stages. I throw the ball up, the ball comes back down. It stands to reason that when you throw the ball up at some velocity, and it goes up and stops, and comes back down, the velocity that the ball went up with at the very bottom here, is the same as the velocity when it reaches my hand. When I throw the ball up, I throw it at some velocity, it stops in the air and then it comes back down. When it reaches my hand, it's going at the same speed, but it's going down."

Is this true? I'm trying to wrap my head around it at the moment. Given that the only force exerted on the ball is the initial velocity thrown up and gravity, without drag at all, couldn't the velocity the ball is thrown at be entirely different than the velocity it's going at when it falls back down to earth under the pull of gravity and reaches your hand?

I've been doing a ton of math today, and my brain is tired. I just want to understand this so I don't feel like an idiot. This guy is a math teaching genius, demonstrating things that before I scratched my head at. This part is a little confusing to me though.

Can somebody demonstrate that part to me in a bit more simple terms how the velocity of the ball would be exactly the same both ways?

 

[Krynn72]

I'm certainly not well versed in the ways of mathematics, but it seems like the ball would only go as fast as gravity can accelerate it in the time its falling, whereas the person throwing it up can accelerate it at a different value. Its gotta have something to do with the height at which he threw it? But I dont see how the initial velocity it takes to throw the ball that high can be equal to the final speed its going when he catches it if they're accelerated by two different things.

 

[Sheepo]

Edit: oops

 

[Sam]

God sent me from the future to troll Solaris.

I'm a time traveller too. I come from the past and travel and 1 second per second.

 

[xcellerate]

Is this true? I'm trying to wrap my head around it at the moment.

It is, it has to do with potential energy and kinetic energy. The potential energy the ball builds from going up is turned into kinetic energy on the way down. You have to remove air resistance for it to work because obviously if you throw a feather up in the air, it'll fall slower.

But this idea is what goes with a lot of roller coasters. The first hill is the largest, and they get progressively smaller because since PE is turned into KE and vise versa, the friction of the car means the height of the hills you can climb later are slowly reducing.

 

[Raziaar]

It is, it has to do with potential energy and kinetic energy. The potential energy the ball builds from going up is turned into kinetic energy on the way down. You have to remove air resistance for it to work because obviously if you throw a feather up in the air, it'll fall slower.

But this idea is what goes with a lot of roller coasters. The first hill is the largest, and they get progressively smaller because since PE is turned into KE and vise versa, the friction of the car means the height of the hills you can climb later are slowly reducing.

Hmm... Interesting.

So, with drag out of the equation, if I threw a ball up with a velocity of 100meters per second, and it comes back down to earth with the force of gravity -9.8m/s^2 it will reach my hand going 100 meters per second?

That's supremely interesting and something I did not know.

 

[bbson john]

If there is no air resistance, yes. But after all, your arm is not strong enough to throw the ball at 100 meter per sec.

Also, think it this way. For example, if you throw the ball upwards for 5 meters, that means gravity can pull and decelerate this ball for five meters before it stops. So when it stops at maximum height(5m) and starts falling down. The gravity, again, can accelerate this ball for another 5 meters. Since both deceleration and acceleration took place in this 5 meter path, the magnitude of the ball's final velocity are the same.

I guess I am not a very good teacher...

 

[Raziaar]

If there is no air resistance, yes. But after all, your arm is not strong enough to throw the ball at 100 meter per sec.

My momma always told me if I set my mind to it, I can do anything I want!

Thanks for the help

Question: Should I delve into calculus before I go into physics?

 

[Kadayi]

Seriously, Kadayi. Superstring theory proposes the existence of supersymmetry particles and extra dimension, wich can be tested by LHC in the future.

Right now it's a hypothesis (as Direwolf rightly pointed out). Everyone seems pretty certain that the LHC is going to provide some evidence to support it, but what happens if it doesn't? What if it just turns out to be nothing more than a pipe dream? A case of the emperours new clothes?

What do intelligent design proposed? And how can we test for it?

I'm not remotely interested in creationist thinking, or research into it*

Personally I'm more interested in discussions on the unknown. Right now we aren't even fully sure as to how DNA came about (the very building blocks of life..). We know that the origins lie in RNA, but how RNA formed is a mystery at this point in time. Conversely scientists are pretty certain that we are only a few years away from developing our own life forms: -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...-life-could-be-created-within-five-years.html

Albeit that they might start off as simplistic, with mutation who knows how our creations will evolve. If we can achieve this (creating new life) despite our relatively young age as a species, who knows what has happened before? Could life on earth be the resultant of a galaxy wide seeding program from elsewhere? Quite possibly. Should the lack of clear evidence as to the origins of DNA dissuade us from considering it?


*For the record the often bandied around figure of 'Earth only 6000 years old!!!' or evolution being a false aren't beliefs that the vast majority of organised Churches or Christians subscribe to. They consider the bulk of the bible as allegorical and therefore subject to interpretation rather than literal. Something that is often deliberately overlooked by the bulk of ill informed armchair atheists when tirading against Christians rather than creationists. Still that's a debate for another time.

 

[Solaris]

My momma always told me if I set my mind to it, I can do anything I want!

Thanks for the help

Question: Should I delve into calculus before I go into physics?

Another way to think of your original question is by visualising a graph of displacement against time.

It would be an upside down curve, symmetrical on both sides of the peak.

And yes, a bit of calculus is nesacarry for highschool level physics (at least over here), but nothing more than simple integration and differentiation with equations that can be done easilly.

If you want to pursue it too university standard, then you need to know quite a bit.

 

[Raziaar]

I just want to learn enough and get into linear algebra learning enough to benefit me with my game programming, to develop a mathematical tool set I can fall back on.

I'm not sure how far I need to go in calculus and linear algebra to really be well set for that, for 2d and 3d graphics math.

 

[bbson john]

Right now it's a hypothesis (as Direwolf rightly pointed out). Everyone seems pretty certain that the LHC is going to provide some evidence to support it, but what happens if it doesn't? What if it just turns out to be nothing more than a pipe dream? A case of the emperours new clothes?

This is a pessimistic way of thinking. We should not just sit and do nothing just because we may have a chance of making mistake. If the result given to scientists by LHC does not fit the superstring model, then the superstring theory is false. Nonetheless, Science won't stop here. Quantum theories will be modified so that it fit the newly found result. Then other experiment will be carried out to validate the new theory. After all, it is not the first time a scientific theory being proved to be false. The physics discipline won't turn upside down just because a theory is wrong. For the meanwhile, superstring theory is one of the best theories to describe our world.

Off the topic, for the start of life, abiogenesis is the best naturalistic way to explain life. None may say abiogenesis is a fact, as palaeontologists have not yet found direct evidence of it. But I bet it is probably true. It is because the age of the universe is around 15 billion year old. Our solar system aged around 5 billion years. The life expectancy of our solar system is around 10 billion years. Heavy elements like lanthanides and actinides are found naturally in Earth crust. These elements can be generated only through hot fusion, that is the fusion inside the core of other stars. The first-gen stars consisted of mostly hydrogen and helium and trace amount of oxygen, carbon and other light elements. There were no heavy nucleus. Heavy elements are essential elements for an advanced civilisation. So I bet we are the second-gen solar system and the first-gen life-form. The chance of ET producing us is pretty low.

 

[Direwolf]

Right now it's a hypothesis (as Direwolf rightly pointed out). Everyone seems pretty certain that the LHC is going to provide some evidence to support it, but what happens if it doesn't? What if it just turns out to be nothing more than a pipe dream? A case of the emperours new clothes?

That's pretty much science in a nutshell. If it can't be supported, they'll have to go back to drawing board and either modify the hypothesis or create a new one based on the information they gathered in the experiment. Failure is the default assumption for an untested hypothesis, since by logic most of them must be wrong when more than one exists to explain a particular phenomenon.

 

[Eejit]

Kadayi knows that, he's trying to make that point clear to some people.

 

[SimonomiS]

Those wacky creationists, whatever will they do next?

 

[Kadayi]

This is a pessimistic way of thinking. We should not just sit and do nothing just because we may have a chance of making mistake. If the result given to scientists by LHC does not fit the superstring model, then the superstring theory is false. Nonetheless, Science won't stop here. Quantum theories will be modified so that it fit the newly found result. Then other experiment will be carried out to validate the new theory. After all, it is not the first time a scientific theory being proved to be false. The physics discipline won't turn upside down just because a theory is wrong. For the meanwhile, superstring theory is one of the best theories to describe our world.

I'm not saying it's false or not worth investigating (far from it), but the expectation of success shouldn't be accepted as a given (or fact), simply because of the buzz surrounding it.

 

[Solaris]

I just want to learn enough and get into linear algebra learning enough to benefit me with my game programming, to develop a mathematical tool set I can fall back on.

I'm not sure how far I need to go in calculus and linear algebra to really be well set for that, for 2d and 3d graphics math.

Hmm, me neither. I presume such things entail Newtonian equations of motion and such, so perhaps you would need to integrate things quite alot etc, but i have no idea.

Calculus is good fun anyway.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Guys guys, nobody cares. I have something more important.

My church as become a front for scientists!
They're holding a debate. A debate!
The world is at an end.

 

[Sheepo]

Every one knows birds can't practice organized religion you liar.