Science - Good And Bad?

[Boojum]

I'd ask why there has to be a reason for existence ? Things don't exist for a reason, they just exist. Reasons are human inventions. Nature doesn't need a reason, it just is.

[eski]

The only good science out there is Earth Gaia type science. Maybe it could be expanded to Universal Gaia science if there wer living things out there or just assuming the whole universe is all one giant organism. Stuff that evolves to adapt to its environment, even then nothing is guaranteed, things go extinct, mammals start going into land, giant rocks mess up the atmosphere - but at least all this stuff was an act of nature/god.

All the science the people do is going against nature and therefore why I think it is wrong. Sure theres good science - I'm not against innovation and some of peoples greatests moments involved technology but its getting to the point where we may be able to create life biologically ( Genetic Engineering) and even artificially ( A.I). Also the technological innovations we are coming up with can have huge consequences. I think Scientists need to factor in more stuff when they apply their knowledge to the problems they solve but nah its still based on some economic need so it will always be bad and uncontrollable.

Anyway, my point is we exist as part of a larger system Gaia for some unknown reason and as most of the science we do now seems to be destroying the environment I can't see any good coming from it in the long term or in terms of the race in general.

[kilgore trout]

so far, the only thing weve all agreed apon is that none of us know, for definite, the reason for our existance, so from that assumption i'll extrapolate a theory:

1. we do not know our reason for existance.

2. thus far, we have survived without knowing our reason for existance

3. therefore,(using proper science speek) we can survive quite well without knowing our reason for existance.

4. it is not essential to know the reason for existance

[Boojum]

5. There may not be a reason for existence.

[Guest Rex Mundi]

I haven't said much (well anything) yet as I wanted to see which direction this thread took, and I suspected it would end up in philosophy....

Now I don't want to spoil that line, please keep it going, but I would like to add a bit of science back in...

At a smoko I attended recently with a few present members, I mentioned a simple scientific fact that everyone was convinced was wrong, so can I try a little test here...

no maths required, just use your own imagination...

I have a gun that will fire a bullet horizontally at a muzzle velocity of 14.7m/s, it is positioned 44.1m above the ground.

Next to it is another identical bullet, but this one is not fired, just dropped.

I fire the gun, and as the bullet leaves the muzzle the second bullet is dropped, so they start their journey at precisely the same time from precisely the same height.

Which one hits the ground first?

[Boojum]

The answer that comes without thinking is the dropped bullet.

The answer that comes with a bit of thinking but only a very basic grasp of physics (cos I generally fell asleep in physics) is that gravity acts on a moving object not under constant propulsion the same as on a dropped object, so they'd both hit the ground at the same time.

The smartarse answer is that for some reason due to the curvature of the earth & other jiggery pokery, the fired bullet would hit first.

The first answer can't be the right one or else you wouldn't have asked. I can't explain why if the final answer is right, so by a process of elimination I'd say both at the same time cos gravity is a constant. But like I say, I slept through A level physics.

[Guest Rex Mundi]

Correct boojum, they both hit at the same time.

But most people find that hard to believe, and before someone mentions it, I don't care if the bullet is from a rifle, rifling or spinning the bullet does not counteract gravitation.

Both bullets will hit the ground after 3 seconds, only the fired one will be 44.1 meters away.

[Boojum]

I got a physics question right

[Guest Rex Mundi]

Okay boojum, try this...

Light is invisible... true or false?

[Boojum]

Well we see because of the reflection of light off things, but we don't see the light itself, just the wavelengths that aren't absorbed by an object. White light is invisible, I'd say.

I do remember sleeping through the whole section on light, wave/particle duality & all that stuff

[Guest Rex Mundi]

White light is invisible, I'd say.

Why only white light?

I'm not giving the full answer yet, but I think you will get there.

[Boojum]

Cos white light contains all wavelengths of light, but our eyes are only designed to see the visible wavelengths, the spectrum. We see light when white light gets split into its visible wavelengths. We see a rainbow because the white light is being split into its visible wavelengths by water droplets in the air. The ultraviolet at one end & infrared at the other remain invisible to our eyes. Summat to do with the excitation of rods & cones in the retina, only certain wavelengths produce the right excitation to send the signal to the brain.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Boojum

[Blayz'd]

Yes, light is visible, also, invisible. Some parts of the spectrum we see, others we don't. Normal sunlight or normal light creates the image in your mind, you have to be able to see light for it to work. The brain uses light to see objects etc. so we have to be able to see light to see the objects. If there's no light, there's no picture, hence there's no light visible. Light is visible only when it hits something. Otherwise it will travel uninterupted and not visible to us. So light is both visible and invisible.

Well, that's the way I 'see' it.

[obscure_shadow]

k well i just read the first post on the thread and decided i would comment before i read it cause i got alot of things and i dont want to forget

anyways, been in a bad headspace as of late but science is amazing... it's the only thing that really leaves me in awe. it's the only religion that i have ever participated in that is based entirely upon what can be experienced. the only religion that they dont fully beleve somthing untill you have proven it several times over, and even then they still have to question... and the amazing thing about it is that the possibilities are endless, there is no end to what we could learn. and i think that's why people are scared, because they know that some very bad, very evil things could come out of science, and yet some very good, very amazing things could be a result as well

now dont get me wrong, i'm a very deeply spiritual individual, but i feel that science is a way for me to confirm the things which i am experiencing.. tho i think that's because of my understanding of science as well.... it really is amazing... and i'm always just curious how everything works... the

damnit somone distracted me and i forgot.....

[Arnold Layne]

I'd ask why there has to be a reason for existence ? Things don't exist for a reason, they just exist. Reasons are human inventions. Nature doesn't need a reason, it just is.

Isn't that just an opinion? Well, OK, its a question. Why dose there have to be a reason - I don't know, I just find life extremely unsatisfactory without the notion of an underpinning and sustaining Reason.

Even if there is indeed "No Reason", it does not address the fact that for some of us, the Reason is everything. In which case, life is a sick joke, an impossible riddle designed merely to frustrate and annoy.

The Universe is material. And finite. So what lies beyond it?

As to bullets and gravity - yer wha? :wink: :wink: I'd say, Mind your feet!

Edited March 27, 2007 by Arnold Layne