|
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 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: This is the weirdest thing I've ever read... |
 |
|
Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'
Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our activities may be shortening the life of the universe too.
The startling claim is made by a pair of American cosmologists investigating the consequences for the cosmos of quantum theory, the most successful theory we have. Over the past few years, cosmologists have taken this powerful theory of what happens at the level of subatomic particles and tried to extend it to understand the universe, since it began in the subatomic realm during the Big Bang.
Cosmologists claim by observing dark energy the universe has been nudged closer to its death
But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about. In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years. They often illustrate their concerns about what the theory means with mind-boggling experiments, notably Schrodinger's cat in which, thanks to a fancy experimental set up, the moggy is both alive and dead until someone decides to look, when it either carries on living, or dies. That is, by one interpretation (by another, the universe splits into two, one with a live cat and one with a dead one.)
The damaging allegations are made by Profs Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and James Dent of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, who suggest that by making this observation in 1998 we may have caused the cosmos to revert to an earlier state when it was more likely to end. "Incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life-expectancy of the universe," Prof Krauss tells New Scientist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about. In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years. They often illustrate their concerns about what the theory means with mind-boggling experiments, notably Schrodinger's cat in which, thanks to a fancy experimental set up, the moggy is both alive and dead until someone decides to look, when it either carries on living, or dies. That is, by one interpretation (by another, the universe splits into two, one with a live cat and one with a dead one.) |
this reminds me a little of the film.
'What the bleep do we know'
good film in my opinion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Masta_Don
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
this reminds me a little of the film.
'What the bleep do we know'
good film in my opinion |
Since the link broke the tables, I had to scroll back over to see your name. I assumed you were Igotthisguitar, but, alas, you aren't. C'mon, you really think water can read Japanese? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Masta_Don wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
this reminds me a little of the film.
'What the bleep do we know'
good film in my opinion |
Since the link broke the tables, I had to scroll back over to see your name. I assumed you were Igotthisguitar, but, alas, you aren't. C'mon, you really think water can read Japanese? |
I haven't seen the film in awhile, but if my memory is correct, I think you are misunderstanding the study.
The water isn't reading the japanese. The test subjects read the japanese and then observe the water. Different words induce different observations and/or formations of water molecules.
Again its been awhile since i saw it, but yes, i think the theory has merit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Masta_Don
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Masta_Don wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
this reminds me a little of the film.
'What the bleep do we know'
good film in my opinion |
Since the link broke the tables, I had to scroll back over to see your name. I assumed you were Igotthisguitar, but, alas, you aren't. C'mon, you really think water can read Japanese? |
I haven't seen the film in awhile, but if my memory is correct, I think you are misunderstanding the study.
The water isn't reading the japanese. The test subjects read the japanese and then observe the water. Different words induce different observations and/or formations of water molecules.
Again its been awhile since i saw it, but yes, i think the theory has merit. |
Ok, that may be. I read the book about those 'experiments' and haven't seen the movie. In the book they do that, but they also write directly on the bottle and have it effect the water. Then they use the water to cook rice and the rice is all brown and disgusting. The kids that showed us that book, two die-hard hippies, believed every word of it and figured it was going to change the world completely. My friend and I used to snicker about, devising plans of cooking rice with water that had 'fucktard' written on the side of it and serving it to them. It seems like complete crap, vibes or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Masta_Don wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Masta_Don wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
this reminds me a little of the film.
'What the bleep do we know'
good film in my opinion |
Since the link broke the tables, I had to scroll back over to see your name. I assumed you were Igotthisguitar, but, alas, you aren't. C'mon, you really think water can read Japanese? |
I haven't seen the film in awhile, but if my memory is correct, I think you are misunderstanding the study.
The water isn't reading the japanese. The test subjects read the japanese and then observe the water. Different words induce different observations and/or formations of water molecules.
Again its been awhile since i saw it, but yes, i think the theory has merit. |
Ok, that may be. I read the book about those 'experiments' and haven't seen the movie. In the book they do that, but they also write directly on the bottle and have it effect the water. Then they use the water to cook rice and the rice is all brown and disgusting. The kids that showed us that book, two die-hard hippies, believed every word of it and figured it was going to change the world completely. My friend and I used to snicker about, devising plans of cooking rice with water that had 'fucktard' written on the side of it and serving it to them. It seems like complete crap, vibes or not. |
I suggest watching the movie.
Quantum physics is well above my head, but from what I've been able to process in laymen, it seems like a very exciting research area.
I'm not so quick to pass it off as 'crap'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And by the way, the weirdest thing I've ever read:
| Quote: |
Conspiracy theories are designed to undermine public participation in the political process. When lead to believe that "everything" was an "inside job", ordinary people are induced to withdraw from public life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Masta_Don
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
who preys? and for what reason? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
And by the way, the weirdest thing I've ever read:
| Quote: |
Conspiracy theories are designed to undermine public participation in the political process. When lead to believe that "everything" was an "inside job", ordinary people are induced to withdraw from public life.
|
|
| ...but once upon a time, he wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Lets assume that a large percentage of the general public believe that there is a conspiracy taking place in their government. After careful examination, they discover:
1. they have taken a closer look at both sides and come to the conclusion that the conspiracy theory has little evidence to support it;
2. looked at the 65%, their opinions, why they hold those opinions, and conclude that the opinions of the 65% are a reasonable interpretation of the evidence;
3. are willing to accept they are wrong because everything (all the evidence) is telling them they are wrong; and;
4. have determined that they are being intellectually honest.
What is the responsible thing to do next? |
the wise thing to do is move on....accept that the theory is wrong. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Read ur posts. Not the most objective sources, but then again, what is?
Like I said, the science is over my head. I understand the basic principles of quantum physics and the implications of such.
I never took the film as a proof for anything. I thought the film raised a lot of questions, but didn't actually fully answer them.
So how am I to be deceived?
What I took away from that film what this.
| Quote: |
1. The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality.
2. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts. |
1. I don't think anyone has proven anything yet, and, how could we?
2. I firmly believe this, quantum mechanics or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
And by the way, the weirdest thing I've ever read:
| Quote: |
Conspiracy theories are designed to undermine public participation in the political process. When lead to believe that "everything" was an "inside job", ordinary people are induced to withdraw from public life.
|
|
| ...but once upon a time, he wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Lets assume that a large percentage of the general public believe that there is a conspiracy taking place in their government. After careful examination, they discover:
1. they have taken a closer look at both sides and come to the conclusion that the conspiracy theory has little evidence to support it;
2. looked at the 65%, their opinions, why they hold those opinions, and conclude that the opinions of the 65% are a reasonable interpretation of the evidence;
3. are willing to accept they are wrong because everything (all the evidence) is telling them they are wrong; and;
4. have determined that they are being intellectually honest.
What is the responsible thing to do next? |
the wise thing to do is move on....accept that the theory is wrong. |
|
and?
this is for a single conspiracy theory that meets the criteria above.
or are you again assuming that ALL conspiracy theories are the same?
did you miss the stereotyping/over generalizing class in grade 5 or something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
is it to be assumed that you have?
care to join in on the conversation if you have? |
|
| 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
