pirana 0 #276 August 8, 2008 Quote Quote Quote The molecules of wo physical things canont touch each other due to the nuclear force, kind of like two magnets. Yet we have this perception of touch. It's been a while since you took a chemistry class, hasn't it. . You are right, It's been a while since my last chemistry class...but the quantum physics class I am taking right now isnt distant at all. Quantum mechanics does not allow for molecules of individual physical object to ever touch. Try again.. Correct. There is no touching. It is all force fields. If you actually got them to touch at the atomic level, the result would be quite violent. I think that TV show gave most people the completely wrong idea of quanta (Quantum Leap?). They portrayed it as some magical powerful thing, and also inferred it to be large. A quantum is simply the smallest indivisible discreet package in which something is available. (And is at the root of my opinion that there is no such thing as infinity other than on paper and in thought experiments; because there is a lower limit to small. There is not a point between every 2 points. You can do it on paper or in your brain by just adding decimal places, but in the real world smallness actually has a well defined limit). But I digress; and I'm an amatuer; so go ahead and laugh). The best read, without needing advanced formal education on the topic, are the Penrose-Hawking discussions. The best fun read is Alice in Quantumland. The best comic book is The Flaming Carrot. And my favorite color is . . . . Blue Skies and a fabulous weekend to all." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #277 August 8, 2008 Quote Quote Quote The molecules of wo physical things canont touch each other due to the nuclear force, kind of like two magnets. Yet we have this perception of touch. It's been a while since you took a chemistry class, hasn't it. . You are right, It's been a while since my last chemistry class...but the quantum physics class I am taking right now isnt distant at all. Quantum mechanics does not allow for molecules of individual physical object to ever touch. Try again.. So perhaps you can explain how the nuclear force causes intermolecular repulsion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #278 August 9, 2008 QuoteI just watched this news clip http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080805/video/vwl-world-primates-facing-extinction-15af341.html in which they take Darwins theory of evolution as fact. Do you feel that this piece should have been less biased towards evolution and mentioned the other side of the story with equal regard? Should evolution be the one and only accepted theory? Is it time to consign Creationism to the history books? When you say, the other side, there are more than 2 sides, so they are all up for grabs. Anyone to claim absolute assurity to any of it is being foolish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #279 August 9, 2008 QuoteDue to the absence of evidence creationism should be relegated to the church, where they need no evidence. Science requires evidence. Evolution has lots of supporting evidence. Science begs you to disprove them, religion dares you to. Religion uses piss poor logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #280 August 9, 2008 Quote Perhaps you " descendents" of monkeys should take up another sport....like swinging from tree to tree. Your evolution is a load of absolute CRAP. Its hard to imagine so little intelligence in your minds. Who said all mean were created equal???? Come on, have a seat, relax and roll back on your tailbone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #281 August 9, 2008 QuoteThe absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many scientific theories had no evidence until someone proved it right. We should not abandon a theory due to a lack of evidence. Our understanding of our world is limited. I agree with the last part, which is why science doesn't prove anything, it disproves things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #282 August 9, 2008 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is hard evidence for having a common ancestor with chimpanzees in our cell's molecular clocks, our genome... Not to mention virtually identical phenotypes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AMax 0 #283 August 9, 2008 the most remarkable difference is that, despite the similarity of our nervous systems, we wonder and the monkeys don't ... how do you explain that ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #284 August 9, 2008 QuoteQuantum mechanics does not allow for molecules of individual physical object to ever touch. Try again.. Sorry but you need to go back and read up on QM. The expectation value for two particles to be in the same place at the same time is not zero. In otherwords, different objects can touch. Inverse beta decay is a well documented example of this. That's the problem with pop science, you only get half the picture and it's been drawn with crayons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #285 August 9, 2008 QuoteMost sciences have always ignored studying the non-tangible aspects of our world, such as consciousness, the phenomenon of deja vu, intentions, etc. It's hard to put these things into numbers so science takes the easy route and simply ignores them. (I am paraphrasing Fred Allen Wolf here) You're right, some scientific disciplines don't generally get involved with conciousness, but why would they? You can't find an exact solution to the Schrodinger equation for Helium, so you're just not going to be able to do it for an entire human brain. It's not the fact that science is ignoring conciousness, it's not, there are many scientific disciplines that are fully involved, but that some areas of science aren't really that usefull in tackling it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #286 August 9, 2008 > the most remarkable difference is that, despite the similarity of >our nervous systems, we wonder and the monkeys don't ... Monkeys wonder, too. Chimpanzees demonstrate empathy, altruism, self-awareness, cooperation in problem solving and learning through example and experience. They can be manipulative, and will deceive other chimpanzees when it suits them. They sometimes fret about the future and dwell on the past. We just do all that a bit more intelligently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #287 August 9, 2008 Quotethe most remarkable difference is that, despite the similarity of our nervous systems, we wonder and the monkeys don't ... How did you reach that conclusion?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #288 August 9, 2008 Quotethe most remarkable difference is that, despite the similarity of our nervous systems, we wonder and the monkeys don't ... how do you explain that ? They're smarter?!!! I'm not qualified to answer that, so I won't guess. But look at genotype or more obviously, phenotype and there are stark similarities. What does that mean? I guess Jebus wanted to fool the naive, right? At the end of the day, this is one questio we'll have to die with contentment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #289 August 9, 2008 >>>>>>>>>>We just do all that a bit more intelligently. And react with more stupidity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
