Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT: Gravity explained

H

Homer J Simpson

Jan 1, 1970
0
I think the current "Intelligent Design" charade is part of a
Creationist plot to subvert the teaching of science in public schools.

You think? Did you know that the original drafts of the ID texts used the
word 'creation' all the way through and they changed them all to
'intelligent design'. That was enough for one judge to toss them.



--
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
 
C

Clifford Heath

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard said:
just fire your retrorockets
to bring your [solar] orbital speed to zero

With an energy budget of 900MJ/kg you could dispose of the
waste a *lot* more easily. Did you *realize* that our orbital
velocity is over 30km/second?
 
C

Clifford Heath

Jan 1, 1970
0
Clifford said:
With an energy budget of 900MJ/kg you could dispose of the
waste a *lot* more easily. Did you *realize* that our orbital
velocity is over 30km/second?

Oops, 1/2 m v^2. 450MJ/kg.
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
Late at night, by candle light, John Larkin


This justifies legislating mandatory teaching of ID to the exclusion
of other hypothesis?

Has that been tried lately? Seems to me that the trend is to teach
orthodox (random mutation/selection) evolution only, and not even
mention, however briefly, alternate concepts. The origin of life is a
mystery, so should be taught as such. I guess it's tough for the
science education establishment to admit that they don't know
everything.

John
 
Y

YD

Jan 1, 1970
0
Late at night, by candle light, John Larkin
Of course there's no answer to the origin of life on Earth. That was
my point. In any situation where there is no answer, you get
permission to think, if you are so inclined.

John

This justifies legislating mandatory teaching of ID to the exclusion
of other hypothesis?

- YD.
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
Has that been tried lately? Seems to me that the trend is to teach
orthodox (random mutation/selection) evolution only, and not even
mention, however briefly, alternate concepts. The origin of life is a
mystery, so should be taught as such. I guess it's tough for the
science education establishment to admit that they don't know
everything.

The science education establishment is established to teach science.
When I was taught science, part of the discussion of the scientific
method is that it doesn't know everything, but it provides a logical
framework to explore the unknown and discover things about nature
based on observation and experiment, not politics and sermons.
 
H

Homer J Simpson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Has that been tried lately? Seems to me that the trend is to teach
orthodox (random mutation/selection) evolution only, and not even
mention, however briefly, alternate concepts. The origin of life is a
mystery, so should be taught as such. I guess it's tough for the
science education establishment to admit that they don't know
everything.

Science is repeatable.

Religion is not.
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
Science is repeatable.

Religion is not.

I'm not advocating teaching religion, but rather mentioning various
theories of the origin of life, and pointing out that none are proven.

And science, historically, has not been repeatable. Actually, religion
has probably been *more* repeatable than science. How many 3000-year
old science texts are still in use?

John
 
H

Homer J Simpson

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm not advocating teaching religion, but rather mentioning various
theories of the origin of life, and pointing out that none are proven.

Nothing is proven. Gravity, electricity and the like are predictable but not
understood.
And science, historically, has not been repeatable. Actually, religion
has probably been *more* repeatable than science. How many 3000-year
old science texts are still in use?

How many people have walked on water, talked to burning bushes, raised the
dead? Do you really want to stand on those descriptions of events?

Some people don't believe in the explanations of the Kennedy assassination -
and that was in recent memory.
 
T

Terry Given

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
I'm not advocating teaching religion, but rather mentioning various
theories of the origin of life, and pointing out that none are proven.

but if one wants to mention the creationist theory, in a science class,
should one not point out the wealth of evidence that tends to suggest
its crap? like, for example, the creationist insistence that the earth
is 6,000 years old (best not to think about the 7,000 year old artefacts
of human civilisation that archaeologists keep digging up).

(all ID proponents appear to be creationists)

surely the real point re. ID is that its NOT a *scientific* theory. it
makes no predictions, testable or otherwise.

(OK, you can still call it a scientific theory, its just a very bad one)

as opposed to, say (I forget the guys name) the idea that DNA et al came
from cometary material, which is what kick-started life here on earth.

OK, it wouldnt be to hard to come up with a more scientific ID theory -
eg we were developed as a meat species by a bunch of aliens living near
Alpha Centauri, who are still there, and periodically come back to
harvest us when the planet fills up (which is why the dinosaurs died
out, they were tasty); alien abductions are just quality control.
And science, historically, has not been repeatable. Actually, religion
has probably been *more* repeatable than science. How many 3000-year
old science texts are still in use?

John

thats a little bit unfair. how many 3000-year-old scientific principles
are still in use? hydraulics have been around for a long time, as have
compression structures - hell, civil engineers have only been able to
build tension structures for a few centuries. Pi anyone? Astronomy, to
work out eclipses (a-la stonehenge)? Geometry? those things still hold
true today.

OTOH the book of genesis contains two contradictory stories of the
beginning. And I defy you to cough up a 3,000 year old bible that looks
even vaguely like the modern ones (a 3000 y.o. new testament would cause
no small amount of problems for the jesus-based faiths). The entire
jesus-based thing isnt 3,000 years old (IIRC its 2007 Anno Domini).
Mohammed was circa 600AD. I dont think there are many followers of Ra
still around, and the mormons didnt exist 200 years ago. Hell, the
scientologists didnt exist 60 years ago.

Cheers
Terry
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
but if one wants to mention the creationist theory, in a science class,
should one not point out the wealth of evidence that tends to suggest
its crap? like, for example, the creationist insistence that the earth
is 6,000 years old (best not to think about the 7,000 year old artefacts
of human civilisation that archaeologists keep digging up).

(all ID proponents appear to be creationists)

I'm not.
surely the real point re. ID is that its NOT a *scientific* theory. it
makes no predictions, testable or otherwise.

(OK, you can still call it a scientific theory, its just a very bad one)

as opposed to, say (I forget the guys name) the idea that DNA et al came
from cometary material, which is what kick-started life here on earth.

Panspermia. That's not impossible or, in my opion, even unreasonable.
It ought to be mentioned in science classes.

People keep associating non-random-evolution theories of the origin of
life on earth with religious creationism, so they can then shoot all
other theories down.

Jumping genes, prions, masers, atomic fission, the kinetic theory of
gasses, all sorts of stuff was once scourned by the scientific
establishment. It would be folly to assume that nature has no
surprises left for us.
OK, it wouldnt be to hard to come up with a more scientific ID theory -
eg we were developed as a meat species by a bunch of aliens living near
Alpha Centauri, who are still there, and periodically come back to
harvest us when the planet fills up (which is why the dinosaurs died
out, they were tasty); alien abductions are just quality control.


thats a little bit unfair. how many 3000-year-old scientific principles
are still in use? hydraulics have been around for a long time, as have
compression structures - hell, civil engineers have only been able to
build tension structures for a few centuries. Pi anyone? Astronomy, to
work out eclipses (a-la stonehenge)? Geometry? those things still hold
true today.

Pure math has endured for millenia. Practically no other quantitative
science has. I grant that we're getting pretty close on lots of things
- conservation of energy looks like a keeper - but there's still a lot
to learn about evolution and climate and cellular mechanisms, so
dogmatism is just an impediment to progress. Discoveries are nearly
always contrarian.
OTOH the book of genesis contains two contradictory stories of the
beginning. And I defy you to cough up a 3,000 year old bible

Did I say "bible"?
that looks
even vaguely like the modern ones (a 3000 y.o. new testament would cause
no small amount of problems for the jesus-based faiths). The entire
jesus-based thing isnt 3,000 years old (IIRC its 2007 Anno Domini).
Mohammed was circa 600AD. I dont think there are many followers of Ra
still around,

but lots of Jews.

John
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm not.




Panspermia. That's not impossible or, in my opion, even unreasonable.
It ought to be mentioned in science classes.

Are you aware of some school district where discussion of panspermia
would not be allowed?
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
Are you aware of some school district where discussion of panspermia
would not be allowed?

I couldn't say. But courts have forbidden the mention of ID.

John
 
R

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm not advocating teaching religion, but rather mentioning various
theories of the origin of life, and pointing out that none are proven.

And science, historically, has not been repeatable. Actually, religion has
probably been *more* repeatable than science. How many 3000-year old
science texts are still in use?

People seem to have trouble grasping second-order concepts, like, teaching
religion is not OK, but there should be no problem with teaching ABOUT
religion. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
but if one wants to mention the creationist theory, in a science class,
should one not point out the wealth of evidence that tends to suggest its
crap? like, for example, the creationist insistence that the earth is
6,000 years old (best not to think about the 7,000 year old artefacts of
human civilisation that archaeologists keep digging up).

(all ID proponents appear to be creationists)

surely the real point re. ID is that its NOT a *scientific* theory. it
makes no predictions, testable or otherwise.


Ever read "Revelations"? It makes a shit-pot load of predictions, some of
which are coming true as we speak.

But I'm not advocating "Intelligent Design" - it was more like an accident;
they (God and The Mother of Everything) had no idea how much it would hurt
to blow themselves into subatomic particles.

More like "Ignorant Design", maybe. ;-)

Thanks,
Rich
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Panspermia. That's not impossible or, in my opion, even unreasonable. It
ought to be mentioned in science classes.

That just evades the issue. "Oh, life landed here after conveniently being
created someplace else, so we don't need to concern ourselves with that
part."

Feh.

Thanks,
Rich
 
R

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
Are you aware of some school district where discussion of panspermia
would not be allowed?

Probably not very many - it's got "sperm" in it, and we have to protect
our kiddies' delicate sensibilities from bad words like that.

Kinda like the Nooz droids talking about "sexual harrisment" - they
can't pronounce it "harassment", because that has "ass" in it. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
People seem to have trouble grasping second-order concepts, like, teaching
religion is not OK, but there should be no problem with teaching ABOUT
religion. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My kid's 7th-grade social studies classes studied the customs and
history of religions around the world. Did you know there is a
sizable Muslim population in China? They're having a real hard time
with this Year of the Pig thing.
 
H

Homer J Simpson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ever read "Revelations"? It makes a shit-pot load of predictions, some of
which are coming true as we speak.

So did Nostradamus but his predictions were as dubious as those in the
Bible.

Example of scientific hypothesis and prediction (WikiPedia)

In the 1840s the renowned Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis noticed that
women giving birth in the Vienna lying-in hospital were dying in one
building, but surviving in another.

Upon considering the cause, he found that the surviving women were attended
by midwives and not by student physicians. Thus he proposed the hypothesis
that the physicians were a factor in the deaths. This proposition impelled
Semmelweis to refine the factor. What was the difference between the
midwives and the doctors?

After more thought, Semmelweis decided that the cadavers which the student
doctors were touching must be part of the factor.

What could the doctors do to avoid the factor? Semmelweis predicted that, if
the doctors were to wash their hands, then the cadaver factor will be
avoided.

Semmelweis therefore instructed the student doctors to wash their hands, and
the women who were attended by the doctors survived. Thus his prediction was
successful, and his hypothesis was validated. (Semmelweis, 1861. The
Etiology, Understanding, and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever)

In contrast the Bible states that the value of pi is 3. I have yet to see a
convincing proof of this.
 

Similar threads

S
Replies
6
Views
919
Robert Baer
R
P
Replies
18
Views
1K
kirkus vomit
K
R
Replies
13
Views
2K
Scott Lane
S
Top