Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3  4
Author: Subject: The limits of science
trinitrotoluene
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 142
Registered: 17-10-2002
Location: California
Member Is Offline

Mood: paranoid

[*] posted on 26-7-2003 at 21:02
The limits of science


This had been in my mind for a while.... After reading some book. Will science ever come to and end? or will it continue infinately? A few possabilities is will someday we discover everything there is to discover about science and there's no more to learn.Or will at some point society, politics, religion outlaw science?
Or will science get very dificult then youths lose intereast in it and it's over?
Or will scientific research just get very expensive and the benifits don't seem worth of the work.

I think it will not end I beleave after one discovery it will raise questions and problems then it will continue on and so on.
What do you people think?




TNT
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
raistlin
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 200
Registered: 5-7-2002
Location: Ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-7-2003 at 00:03


Ad terminum. To the end of time. Its mans nature to want to explore and explain, and when he thinks something is one way, a man will show up with the desire to prove it wrong, will succeed, and everything will start again from there.

The end of science will come with the end of time.




\"To ignite, or not to ignite, that is the question.\"
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
*****




Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-7-2003 at 02:14


Some said, and I've been a believer of that theory for some time (not anymore), is that when science gives man the potential to fully eredicate the human species, this will happen eventually.

Now, we had the potential in the cold war and it didn't happen. Does that mean the theory isn't valid or does it mean the timescale is too small?

[Edited on 27-7-2003 by vulture]




One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
archaelus
Harmless
*




Posts: 10
Registered: 4-9-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 4-9-2003 at 22:14


If you take a quick glance at scientific history, all that is now considered concrete science was once considered magick or sorcery. I see in the future of the human race two paths:

1. self annihilation

2. A merging of science, religion, metaphysics, art, and music. This will bring about a new Aeon of our causal existence... most likely to the end of war, leading back only to number 1.


There is a myth concerning the binary star system Algol. Whether there is any factual basis, I do not know. It is said that there was a great single sun solar system there, having several planets capable of sustaining life, and at least 2 that in fact did. In the entropic manner of creation, the greater the intelligence of the civilizations of these planets grew, the greater the atrocities they committed grew (sound familiar?). They had reached the second path described above, and used such enlightenment in creating a device capable of withstanding direct solar heat long enough to get close enough to their sun to detonate, splitting it in two. The entire solar system was wiped out by this doomsday device, supposedly leaving only a small band of scientists who had escaped in a shuttle.

Myth or reality, it shows all to clearly the direction of our race, and the wonderful fruits of the progress of science.

Archaelus
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DDTea
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 940
Registered: 25-2-2003
Location: Freedomland
Member Is Offline

Mood: Degenerate

[*] posted on 4-9-2003 at 23:26


Here is how I see it... Science today is a lot more complex than it was even 100 or 200 years ago. Following this trend, the areas of research in Science will become more specialized, more detailed, and more complex. It will require high levels of skill and training, thus becoming inaccessible to many... But of course, there will always be the elite few who are fascinated, and willing to dedicate hard work to the study of science.

Also, as you know, necessity is the mother of all invention. Human beings will always want things, no matter what they have; thus there will always be a demand for something more powerful, faster, prettier, or whatever else have you - just look at these trends in computers.

I believe it is impossible to know EVERYTHING about something, and as such, there will always be room for more research. I don't believe that science will ever end, but just become more advanced and involved than we today can imagine.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jruppert
Harmless
*




Posts: 7
Registered: 5-9-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 5-9-2003 at 17:16
mystery chemical sign


OK, I'll try to find a box in which to post the url.

Attachment: http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2003/northdown2/northdown... (0B)
This file has been downloaded 1833 times

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Haggis
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 238
Registered: 1-12-2002
Location: Mid-America.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Lacrymating

[*] posted on 5-9-2003 at 21:35


It will be easier just to follow this direct link: http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2003/northdown2/northdown...

I don't get what chemical symbol you are talking about. Perhaps you are interpreting the 'cropcircles' themselves as a structure.




Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds.
<b> <a href=\"http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xEE41A2B1\">PGP Key</a> </b> 0C0A 7486 B97F 92EE AE50 A98C A4F3 087E 8CE9 A782
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
*****




Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 6-9-2003 at 01:33


The first picture seems like N(NH2-N-NH2)3

Although I doubt such a compound can exist.

Furthermore, what has this got to do with this thread??

[Edited on 6-9-2003 by vulture]




One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Iv4
National Hazard
****




Posts: 312
Registered: 28-5-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 6-9-2003 at 04:54


Probably we'll hav something like star trek(NOt the one with kirk the fag).There will be wars and a few weapons that can destroy solar systems bu that will be the equivilant to a nuke to us.

PS
Just in case your wondering there was a klingon weapon in NG that caused a sort of cancer in fusion reaction so it could shut down the sun in 3 hous o something.Oh and metaphsasic sheilding could go into the sun.
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
jruppert
Harmless
*




Posts: 7
Registered: 5-9-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-9-2003 at 18:02
the crop circle with the possible chemical sign


Thanks to those of you who replied. What follows is from another source:

"The crop formation looks perhaps like an oxidized phenalene with all three benzenes oxidized/or substituted (hydroxyl groups, nitro groups or methyl groups).

Molecule #13 in: http://ois.nist.gov/pah/pages/2.pdf is phenalene. Now, break the double carbon bonds on all three benzenes of the phenalene and you have the Northdown crop formation.

Ask your chemist friend about the uses of phenalenes, particularly substituted phenalenes."

Does this suggest anything in the way of a clue?

ps: I apologize for posting this question to this thread, but I didn't know where to post it, and this thread had the most recent positings and I thought I might find someone online who could figure this out. Thanks.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jruppert
Harmless
*




Posts: 7
Registered: 5-9-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-9-2003 at 18:05
mystery chemical in crop circleHee's


Here is another response given by a professor of chemistry, through a friend:

"Chandra, the chemist, says it's not a chemical symbol as it is,
but if the three circles were closed, it would be anthracene."
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jruppert
Harmless
*




Posts: 7
Registered: 5-9-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-9-2003 at 18:07
one more question re: the crop circle symbol


Does anyone here know what might be the uses of "substituted phenalenes"?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jruppert
Harmless
*




Posts: 7
Registered: 5-9-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-9-2003 at 19:23
impossible (?) compound in crop circle


Quote:
Originally posted by vulture
The first picture seems like N(NH2-N-NH2)3

Although I doubt such a compound can exist.

Furthermore, what has this got to do with this thread??
[Edited on 6-9-2003 by vulture]


What would it mean if it could exist? and associated questions such as can it be made to exist?

---------------------------------------------------

Please use the edit button. Furthermore, don't reply to a quote in the quote itself. I've fixed it.

[Edited on 8-9-2003 by vulture]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jruppert
Harmless
*




Posts: 7
Registered: 5-9-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 9-9-2003 at 07:34
chemical allusion in crop circle


This crop circle symbol may relate to diesel fuel purification and thus to environmental protection. If you go to the link below, a pdf file, and scroll to pp. 20-31, you can read a discussion by Chevron scientists of the processes employed in very recent years by chemists in the oil refining industry, concerning anthracenes, substituted phenalenes, and so forth. Toward the end of this discussion reference is made to very clean and renewable diesel-like fuels that can be produced from soybeans, yes soybeans, called "Biodiesel" and "Soydiesel." The problem as expressed by Chevron on about pg. 31 is that

"The main disadvantage of biodiesel is its cost, which, as of this writing is two-thirds higher than that of conventional diesel fuel. Until the price comes down, its use will probably be limited to situations where it is subsidized or where the potential environmental benefits offset the additional cost. For example, biodiesel is more widely used in Europe where environmental regulations and tax subsidies make it practical."

Random thoughts: didn't a crop circle go down recently in a field of soybeans in the US? Which is more costly, in simple monetary terms -- 100 billion per year+ to put US corporations in control of Iraq's oil fields for years to come, or tax subsidies to environmentally sound corporations to produce oil from soybeans? Is there anything further that can be done to crude oil, as possibly suggested by the chemical structure represented at North Down, that will make its use safer for the environment?

NOTE to Mad Scientist group: Now that there is some indication of the possible relevance of the symbol in the crop circle, does anyone here have a colleague who might be able to shed light on what the symbol means?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jruppert
Harmless
*




Posts: 7
Registered: 5-9-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 9-9-2003 at 07:36
sorry, here's the link


http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/diesel/Diesel...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
raistlin
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 200
Registered: 5-7-2002
Location: Ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 9-9-2003 at 18:54


GOD FREAKING DAMN! USE THE BLOODY EDIT BUTTON!

Sry for ranting guys..., thats just a bit irritating...




\"To ignite, or not to ignite, that is the question.\"
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
Iv4
National Hazard
****




Posts: 312
Registered: 28-5-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-9-2003 at 07:08


Here the weirdest thing your probably going to come across today:

There might be some condition in crop circles that causes the moleculer structre to be paterned.

Kinda like an electron microscope(considering the thoeyr about the earths magnetic field) but instead of hitting a sesnor it gets warped by some force and it causes unfavorbale conditions for crops thus making the paterns.

Though personally I think theres nothing really to these crop circles.

[Edited on 17-9-2003 by Iv4]
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
Blind Angel
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 845
Registered: 24-11-2002
Location: Québec
Member Is Offline

Mood: Meh!

[*] posted on 17-9-2003 at 13:46


Quote:
Originally posted by archaelus
2. A merging of science, religion, metaphysics, art, and music...


Weeehhhh, a molecule that sing, that can be considered as god and that enable us to see thing that doesn't exist....
Doesn't this ring a bell?




/}/_//|//) /-\\/|//¬/=/_
My PGP Key Fingerprint: D4EA A609 55E4 7ADD 8529 359D D6E2 33F6 4C76 78ED
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2879
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline

Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic

smile.gif posted on 13-10-2003 at 06:26


Nope nope nope.
If you look closely to the crop drawing, you would see that:

*Phenalenes
*N(N(NH2)2)3

Aren't options!

Why?
1)simply because the sequence is as follows:
W(BWBW(BWBW(BW)2)2)3
You easily see W = pale ring and B= dark ring).
The center ring is pale and until the next branching (on a pale ring) there are 3 interval rings (BWB sequence) then the same occure when you are on that W branching.But for the last branching we have a shorter sequence.

2)The central W is sp3 and thus can be trivalent with a free doublet or tetravalent but you don't see the above atom because it is superimpressed (the view is celestrial!).
Anyway it is tetraedral as suggest the 3D view you have of the all picture despite it is 2D.
But at the second and third branching the W core is trivalent but flat and thus displays a sp2 conformation.
Finally at the end W are terminal and display valence 1 and are alined with the previous B "atom"(?) --> sp1 conformation?In each arm the W between two barnching W is also sp1 but links with two B (or bivalent 180°)!

3) B must be sp or at least always display a bivalent 180° linkage.
*************
Conclusions:

1)The entire molecule is tetraedral what excludes phenalene what is plannar and aromatic!Proof that it is not flat is that the circles are never full except the first that hide part of the next and so on.

2)W must be of valence (4),3,2,1 or being able to form sp3, sp2 and sp1 hybridations.
W might be C,N (or other carbonides/azotides) since sp1 hybridation can have 1 or 2 binding with B (C would have 2 but one if carbylamine!)

3) B must be sp1 (or center of two sp2)with two linking bonds or be of valence 2 (180°).
B might thus be C (carbonide) ..., Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba,...

4)No molecule made with N and C would hold the shape unless the color isn't important!
Since N(CNCNC(... would imply branch bending N(-C=N=C-N(-
And
-C(-N=C=N-C(-N=C=N-C(-N#C)2)2)3 would also be branch bended.

5)So there is no chemical solutions ...the drawing is a 3D fractal defining 3 planes in the space!

:cool::cool::cool:
Ph Z




PH Z (PHILOU Zrealone)

"Physic is all what never works; Chemistry is all what stinks and explodes!"-"Life that deadly disease, sexually transmitted."(W.Allen)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
slvr_phoenix
Harmless
*




Posts: 12
Registered: 26-11-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: desufnoc

[*] posted on 2-12-2003 at 11:32
The End Of Science


I think 'science' in its quest for 'truth' has ended up just as a religion for atheists. The word science has lost much of its meaning. ANd like all religions at some point the actual facts will make the trappings so evident that reformation back to the basic principles of the core beliefs will be necessary for survival.

Maybe at such a time 'science' can learn to survive again. Right now though I see it on a very self-destructive path. So will science ever end? I think that depends entirely upon what path science follows. The principles of science however, the constant search for the actual truth, will survive, no matter what words or guises it might one day have to hide behind.

As for humanity blowing ourselves up at some point, I think some will manage to survive somehow. Humanity will survive even if our technology doesn't. Such is life.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
slvr_phoenix
Harmless
*




Posts: 12
Registered: 26-11-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: desufnoc

[*] posted on 2-12-2003 at 11:37


Quote:
Originally posted by Ross Koepke
I think at one point, given enough time, we will come up with an accurate equation of everything. It will be an immensely complicated equation to figure out what will happen in any given situation. However, the role of science would still not be gone. We'd still have to find the values of the variables that make up the equation for any given situation
What if one or more of the variables cannot be defined? What if there is an equation which is outside of our equation for which we cannot solve? What if the very nature of the universe required an entity which by its very nature cannot be equal to anything?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Hermes_Trismegistus
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 602
Registered: 27-11-2003
Location: Greece, Ancient
Member Is Offline

Mood: conformation:ga

thumbup.gif posted on 2-12-2003 at 15:50
SCIENCE IS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD, IT IS SIMPLY A METHOD OF THOUGHT. THAT METHOD IS ELEGANT IN ITS LOGIC AND SIMPLICITY, IT IS A REFUSAL TO BELIEVE
ANYTHING UNTIL REASONABLE PROOF IS PROVIDED, AND THEN TO REFUSE TO DISBELIEVE ONCE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED


quote

"I think 'science' in its quest for 'truth' has ended up just as a religion for atheists."

No. Science is what it has always been, informed skepticism in the absence of evidence.

Making observations about the world, formulating testable hypotheses, testing them, making observations during the test.

using the observations to make more testable hypotheses....

Nothing complicated, I think that a common misconception of laymen (and some scientists) is to confuse the TOOLS of science and the FRUITS of science with the METHODS and AIMS of science.

The TOOLS we use are not the methods of science....the METHODS are the questions!

The FRUITS of science are not its aim, they are just serendiptous developments.

Think of it like this, the tree bears fruit as it grows, but bearing fruit is not the goal of the tree, GROWING is.

Science is, by nature, uncontrolled and grows exponentially.

and yes the nature of SCIENCE does not preclude human frailties.




Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics; even if you win: you\'re still retarded.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
tom haggen
National Hazard
****




Posts: 488
Registered: 29-11-2003
Location: PNW
Member Is Offline

Mood: a better mood

[*] posted on 2-12-2003 at 19:57
reply


existance is infnite. as long as there is space and time than there will be an intrest in science



N/A
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
slvr_phoenix
Harmless
*




Posts: 12
Registered: 26-11-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: desufnoc

[*] posted on 4-12-2003 at 05:54


Quote:
Originally posted by Hermes_Trismegistus
No. Science is what it has always been, informed skepticism in the absence of evidence.

If only that were true. Yet evidence is often neglected, ignored, or shunned because that which it offers proof of goes against long established theorums. And meanwhile completely unprovable theories which have no supportive evidence are sometimes so believed that they are treated as laws by some scientists.

No. The heart of science, the quest for answers through the requirement of proof, that will always exist in some form. The field of science itself though, the name, the term which we have given this process, that has just become like any other religion. It requires belief in the unprovable and often shuns or ignores any proof that doesn't fit into its established beliefs.

Don't get me wrong. It's useful. Both are useful. I readily admit benefiting from and working with both 'science' and 'religion'. However I always have to keep an open mind whenever dealing with either to avoid the trappings of their dogma. And I have met a number of scientists in my life who could teach a religious fanatic a thing or two about being a zealot.

Science was and still is beneficial, but the scientific community has turned science into something that it was never meant to be, and it only seems to get worse as time progresses. So as I see it, it is only a matter of time before science either goes through a purification process or turns into something else entirely. That's my point of view anyway.




Chaos is only the beginning to the answers we just can\'t see.
When everything is meant to have an answer it becomes the questions that we need.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
franklyn
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3027
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 19-10-2006 at 03:38


There are only two important ideas that have been originated in all
of the twentieth century. One is Heisenberg's exclusionary principle
and the other is Godel's incompletness theorem. These teach us that
for the first time, we now know that there are definite limits to what
one can know, and that there exists knowledge which will forever
be unknowable.

[Edited on 19-10-2006 by franklyn]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3  4

  Go To Top