h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dont they say that if you continue into outer space you eventually come back on yourself.

WHAT a marathon to say you had run eh! . Did it in ???????

didn't einstein claim something along that line

i believe the true translation of E = mc2 is 'if you are farsighted enough you can spit yerself in the neck'

The distances are so great, and it would take even light so long to travel, you would see what this part of the universe lookedf like billions of years ago--when the Earth was a prosperous paradise, and we all had hair.

paradise is exactly like
where you are right now
only much much better.

a quote from "Language Is A Virus" by Laurie Anderson
from "Home of the Brave" a film by Laurie Anderson

All you have to do to see this is to look up now, at the stars, because a light-year is the distance light travels in a year. So we see stars as they were - alpha centauri, the nearest, is 4 or 5 light years away, so we see it as and where it was in 2004 or 2005. Some stars are billions of light years away, though. We detect them as and where they were billions of years ago, long before the earth and the solar system were formed, let alone hairy people.

The idea of a circular/or, rather, spherical universe and its supposed connection with seeing yourself is a rumour, a myth - or perhaps a truth about the infinity of the universe, expressed rather simply. I don't see any connection between the two, anyway. But if time travel became possible, though, it would be possible to see yourself as you were/will be. Then who of the two would be you? Another problem for common sense!

Jab

re: time travel - its impossible!
I can't see a future relative of mine(I wouldn't) letting ME live more or less penniless and as no one has err been back with next weeks lottery numbers - time travel hasn't happened

That's a great point, Prof!


Jab

Animal logic

time travel may not be impossible - but it will surely have a severe impact on grammar

I love time travel as a theme in science fiction. I've written stories and a novel using time travel.

Jab, I view a lot of scientific theories as just theories. The Big Bang, for instance. Chances are, there is not one person alive who will long enough to see conclusive proof that there ever was a Big Bang. As for black holes, I admit that they *could* exist, but any possible way of proving their existence would have to involve getting close enough to one to get sucked in, after which the scientist providing the proof would not be able to get back out with his proof.

I respect scientists a lot, and give them high marks for committing so much time, effort, and money to discovery of these tiny particles that are racing around CERN (or would be racing if things had turned out differently)

[Jab, I view a lot of scientific theories as just theories.] So do I.

From the point of view of the (properly) sceptical instrumentalist like me, (see earlier postings esp. that from Lew and my answer - 173 and 174)this pretty much applies to most of the concepts in science. Quarks, for instance.

You wouldn't have to approach a black hole to detect it though. You detect it by its effects just as some subatomic particles are detected. You can't see some of them either - they're thought to be too small to be detected other than by their effects on our instruments. As with quarks (a type of subatomic particle, or at least proposed to be). Nobody's quite sure what they are, but our instruments pick up certain effects, and quarks are deduced to be the most likely cause of those effects. They may be just theoretical constructs too.

A theoretical construct is an entity or something constructed/invented as the best explanation for an effect. Not something directly discovered. But be careful here - some have later been discovered to be real in the history of science - some not.

I should be fair to the Realist (opposite) view - that even though science isn't always right, it still represents Reality. But even they don't think it's automatic that it's about Reality, as we are popularly led to believe.

The closer you look at science, the more it falls apart.


Sorry to go on. Novels, eh?


Jab

AND, like Paul, I'm very much in favour of science. Only, I think it should be taken for what it is, not what it isn't.

Jab

like religion, you mean?

Science and religion are very very different.

The first asks how the universe operates, and the second asks why.
The first uses direct observation and painstaking mathematical analysis, while the second uses intuition and faith.

I am very much against having "Intelligent design" presented as a scientific theory in public schools. I am not against having it presented as a religious belief in religious schools. I make this distinction because the students will suffer if their teachers cannot tell the difference between science and religion. Many of them have a hard enough time grasping scientific concepts as it is. There's no need to make their task any harder than it already is.

Intelligent Design is only Creationism in a scientific guise. God had to be the creator of the world if his intelligent design was ever to appear.

I feel so tremendously sorry for Americans and American children who have to put up with this stuff. It's crude, and not even good religion.

About 50% or more of Americans, apparently, believe this nonsense.


Jab

I think that children are learned too much from one side minded people (read: indoctrinated).

I think it should be good that children learn think and debate different sides. examples believes and religions lessons should given people of different believes and religions. it should include cultural elements too. also meeting with children of different believes and religions.

"There will only ever be one revolution
The revolution that the children carry within them."
quote take from Jean Michel Jarre - revolutions cd

Religion and science I believe do not make good bed fellows , they sit uncomfortable at each others side.
Religion is about faith.
I remember reading an article by Richard Dawkins and in his article he touches on faith.
I agree with his sentiments, “ I think faith can be a great evil, because faith means belief without evidence. Belief without evidence is belief which is unshakeable by argument.
And belief that is unshakeable by argument can be used as a justification for all sorts of things.
Science hopefully is the expression of all that we know about the physical world in a language hopefully most can understand
I do not advocate solely secular education , for a developing mind needs firstly to be educated and not influenced before it can independently express an opinion
We seem to have polarised camps, on the one hand religion say you do not need proof it is your faith that is important and on the other the have a system whereby your evidence is not excepted unless it holds up to endless reputation
Philosophy is a sanctum where free radical thought can be experienced
It is often the case it is safer to think it than expressing yourself as that which afflicts the masses is always there to shot you down, commonsense.

repetition not reputation

Some of the finest people I know are devoutly religious. If religion can be a great evil, it can also be a great good in the right hands.
You don't need to be religious in order to have spiritual needs. How you fill this need is up ro you.

The only time I am critical of scientists is when they are not scientific enough. I am critical of religious figures when they don't practice what they preach. Sadly, there are some very well-known religious figures who have fallen short. Most of the world's major religions urge their adherents to treat each other well, to turn the other cheek, to be hospitable to visitors, to give people the benefit of the doubt, and yet there is so much hatred on so many sides.

god bless richard dawkins

(agnostic)