|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| catman wrote: |
| I'm becoming more convinced that Junior is just trolling at this point. |
No, he's just being consistant. I prefer his type over the moderate Christian that betrays both science and their bible. At least the Junior-type bites the bullet. That's just my preference though, I'm sure most of you would prefer the Ken Miller type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| I'm becoming more convinced that Junior is just trolling at this point. |
Junior has already come to a conclusion, and no matter what logical evidence you can provide which comes to an opposing or different conclusion, Junior will take that evidence and twist it around to fit an already pre-conceived belief in the supernatural. Think back to the now-locked evolution thread. Anything you present which goes contradictory to Junior's unshakable belief, will just be twisted around to match that belief, even if it is totally illogical.
There's nothing you can really do for these people. To them, it's just a test of faith, a way to re-enforce some pretty far-fetched ideas / beliefs. The thing about science is that it continually updates knowledge based on new evidence. In others words, it sheds what doesn't work, and leaves behind what works. It often goes against our intuition, or pre-conceived beliefs. It is a constant refining process. But just because we learn something new, doesn't mean we throw away everything which has led us up to the point. Rather, it's like we are investigators who base their conclusions on hard evidence. If a new piece of evidence comes up, we might have to change our conclusion. The process of science itself though, is not at question. Just the conclusion.
Yet we do not just forget what has already been discovered, scientifically. It's more of an update process, than discard and start fresh (not always, but usually). Science is an effort to find the truth about reality, and a method which has basically brought our species from hungry cave dwellers to what we are today.
These days, rather than believe the world is flat, we've discovered it to be round. Not everyone agrees with this (the fringe groups in the USA or middle east, for example) but always remember: there is a big difference between a skeptic and a denier. We absolutely know the world rotates around our sun, and not vice-versa, even though when I was a child, it seemed to me that the sun rotated around the earth. It took a bit of a leap to accept the theory that the Earth rotates around the sun (honestly!). My younger sister, I remember, when just an infant, thought that distant city lights were stars in the ground. I told her otherwise. I remember she looked a bit sad to find that out, but in the end she didn't mind. She also thought the moon was following our car. But I had to explain that it didn't.
Just like as with my sister and myself, as humanity ages, learns, discovers, and adds to our wealth of knowledge, we advance and move forward and use our previous knowledge to further the next step forward. It's ridiculous to scrap all of our knowledge, for say example, heliocentrism vs. geocentrism. As we grow up, so does too, our wisdom.
As for the distance to Mars, I am surprised nobody pounced on Junior for this. Junior does realize that depending on the orbit of Mars (around the sun) it will be either closer to Earth or further from Earth by a drastic amount (I think the journey to Mars can take either six months or two years depending on where it is in relation to the sun and Earth). No? If Mars were orbiting Earth only, and not the sun, surely the distance would remain about the same, constantly. Again, so many scientists would have to be in on some sort of vast conspiracy that it's logically just impossible and highly unlikely that Mars could orbit the Earth.
Science really tests us, and forces us to view the universe as it really is. Sometimes what we learn is not easy to digest, as it conflicts with our 'gut-feeling' of what it should be like. Or maybe there is a book (which never mentions Mars really) but which certain people interpret to come to some sort of conclusion about the real world. But this is a mistake, since 4000 year old knowledge pales in comparison to what we know today. People thought the stars foretold events, that the eclipse would end due to human sacrifice, the wind was the breath of gods, and that the Sun was an all-powerful God that flies across the sky, husband to the moon. Now, we know better.
As for the neutrinos, it appears they are indeed faster than light. But this doesn't change the speed of light, nor does it change Einstein's original equation. You can still say "Nothing goes faster than the speed of light" and place an asterix after it: "Nothing goes faster than the speed of light"* / *except neutrinos. There ya go. Yes, it changes our knowledge of what the fastest known thing is, but it doesn't change the speed of light. It's actually a very small tidbit of information that doesn't necessarily revolutionize science as much as it is hyped up to. It's interesting, but to me, not such a big deal.
They've tested the neutrinos a second time, and came up with the same result. So it looks to me like neutrinos really are faster than the speed of light: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/18/neutrinos_faster_than_light_confirmed/
I liked the SGU's take on the most recent neutrino experiment (Skeptic's Guide Podcast). As you will probably notice, it parallels my view of it and they explain it better than I do. Check it out here:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=332
Anyways, hi Junior. Nice to see you again. Haha.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Junior has already come to a conclusion, and no matter what logical evidence you can provide which comes to an opposing or different conclusion, Junior will take that evidence and twist it around to fit an already pre-conceived belief in the supernatural. Think back to the now-locked evolution thread. Anything you present which goes contradictory to Junior's unshakable belief, will just be twisted around to match that belief, even if it is totally illogical.
|
I agree, although I would shorten it to: Junior started with the 'answer' while science is the search for the answer. Since he already has the answer, he is perfectly willing to burn you at the stake without first strangling you so that you can suffer the agony of a slow death, because it gives that sort pleasure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had intended to post this a while back.
| Quote: |
Error undoes faster-than-light neutrino results (From Science Insider)
February 22, 2012
�
OPERA stands for Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (credit: Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso)
�
It appears that the�faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.
�
After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed.
�
CERN is expected to make an announcement Thursday. |
In short, Einstein is right and Junior is wrong.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckylady
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
I had intended to post this a while back.
| Quote: |
Error undoes faster-than-light neutrino results (From Science Insider)
February 22, 2012
�
OPERA stands for Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (credit: Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso)
�
It appears that the�faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.
�
After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed.
�
CERN is expected to make an announcement Thursday. |
In short, Einstein is right and Junior is wrong. |
Discover also carried an article about this in their monthly; seems the neutrinos also vary their speed depending on what sort of mass they are traveling through - maybe that accounted for the error? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| luckylady wrote: |
| Konglishman wrote: |
I had intended to post this a while back.
| Quote: |
Error undoes faster-than-light neutrino results (From Science Insider)
February 22, 2012
�
OPERA stands for Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (credit: Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso)
�
It appears that the�faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.
�
After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed.
�
CERN is expected to make an announcement Thursday. |
In short, Einstein is right and Junior is wrong. |
Discover also carried an article about this in their monthly; seems the neutrinos also vary their speed depending on what sort of mass they are traveling through - maybe that accounted for the error? |
No, the average of a varying value cannot be bigger than its maximum value. The issue is that the electronics in question can be more prone to glitches at the nanosecond scale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Junior has already come to a conclusion, and no matter what logical evidence you can provide which comes to an opposing or different conclusion, Junior will take that evidence and twist it around to fit an already pre-conceived belief in the supernatural. Think back to the now-locked evolution thread. Anything you present which goes contradictory to Junior's unshakable belief, will just be twisted around to match that belief, even if it is totally illogical.
|
I agree, although I would shorten it to: Junior started with the 'answer' while science is the search for the answer. Since he already has the answer, he is perfectly willing to burn you at the stake without first strangling you so that you can suffer the agony of a slow death, because it gives that sort pleasure. |
Atheism tends to arrive at the answer too, when there isn't one concerning God. At least that's how I look at it. They also tend to use science to back up thier beliefs, when science is really used to establish objective facts about the world around them. Atheists would be more objective if they said I don't believe in anything that religions or philosophies teach concerning God and I don't believe anybody knows anything about God. That is objective and scientific. Religions and religious writers are notoriously unobjective, just read Gibbons (good for an eighteenth century writer). But jumping from what science knows to establishing there is no God, how objective is that? There is an infinite timeline prior to every person as well as one that comes after. How can that be fully described by a human being? If timelines are not infinite, just how do they fit into what human beings would see as the infinite scope of reality? Atheists are human and have human motives and values for thier beliefs. Not to realize that, how objective is that?
My understanding is that what researchers in hard science establish as factual, turns out to be not correct about half of the time. Science does not establish the truth, it establishes facts that can be recognized by poeple from different cultures and with different personal beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seon-bee
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: ROK
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Old news. I read in Scientific American that the project wasn't calibrated properly (wires literally crossed or something like that) and someone lost their job/jobs over it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seon-bee wrote: |
| Old news. I read in Scientific American that the project wasn't calibrated properly (wires literally crossed or something like that) and someone lost their job/jobs over it. |
Yes, I had originally meant to post it last February when I first heard about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of course objects can travel faster than the speed of light.
Some stars are moving away from us at such a speed.
Its not exactly impossible, it happens all the time.
But none of that relates to the masses of evidence pointing to human/ dinosaur coexistence. Does it underwaterbob? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| But none of that relates to the masses of evidence pointing to human/ dinosaur coexistence. Does it underwaterbob? |
Ha! You were taking a sound thumping.
Did anyone tell you why they turfed the thread? I know these threads always run on borrowed time, (because you can't manage to keep religion out of it no doubt  ) but still there are threads here with far worse, raging arguments that persist for longer than our little spats. Heck, they gave 911 and JFK their own stickies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| But none of that relates to the masses of evidence pointing to human/ dinosaur coexistence. Does it underwaterbob? |
Ha! You were taking a sound thumping.
Did anyone tell you why they turfed the thread? I know these threads always run on borrowed time, (because you can't manage to keep religion out of it no doubt ) but still there are threads here with far worse, raging arguments that persist for longer than our little spats. Heck, they gave 911 and JFK their own stickies. |
I have no idea why, its not as if we were discussing religion or being abusive. I can only guess that someone posted up something ofensive.
But we can continue our discussion of archaeology if you want.
I believe they unearthed some decorated stones in peru that depicted dinosaurs, that were first mentioned by the conquistadores centuries ago. Under microscope some were proven to have been very recently made, the minute fragments of chainsaw blades were found in the grooves. However many others had no such evidence and they appeared not to have been worked for centuries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Of course objects can travel faster than the speed of light.
Some stars are moving away from us at such a speed.
Its not exactly impossible, it happens all the time.
|
Wrong.
It's impossible.
Junior, your ignorance astounds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| brento1138 wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
Of course objects can travel faster than the speed of light.
Some stars are moving away from us at such a speed.
Its not exactly impossible, it happens all the time.
|
Wrong.
It's impossible.
Junior, your ignorance astounds. |
Not that I subscribe to what Junior is saying here, but you can't exactly state that it is "impossible". It has not been proven as such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leicsmac
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If I may interject here...this is sort of my territory.
Some objects are indeed moving away from us at a relative (and that's the important term here) speed that is faster than lightspeed...the Universe is a lot bigger than just the part that we can see, due to the speed of expansion just after the Big Bang being faster than light, when the fundamental laws of the Universe had not yet taken shape. These objects are not moving faster than light themselves - but their velocity (direction of movement is key here) and our own velocity combined gives a result that is faster than 300 million m/s.
However, the fact that they are moving FTL relative to us is moot because we have no way of observing them as any electromagnetic radiation they emit will never reach us to be observed.
The speed of light itself has been set in stone since just, just after the Big Bang, and thus far we've discovered nothing that can go faster.
As an addenum...through analysing redshift data from distant objects (at university), I personally have seen gamma radiation that has taken over 13 billion years to reach us. Therefore it's not a big leap of the imagination to think that the Universe itself must be at least that old. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
