Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The Science - Science Fiction thread
DarthDimi
Behind you!Moderator
Who here likes sciences? I'm talking about exact sciences like mathematics, chemistry, physics and biology. I do. I love chemistry and physics and I'm rather fond of math as well. They can thrill me, challenge me. They give me pleasure, while I'm reading about them, writing about them or teaching them. It hurts when people call them boring or difficult, for they are neither of both. However, much depends on how you were introduced to them. Poor experiences in school will most likely discourage you to study sciences. Perhaps this thread can eventually change your mind about science.
<img src="http://blogs.poz.com/paul/mad_scientist.gif">;
I've opened up this thread so that sciences can be discussed. We begin with this small introduction. Tell us how you feel about sciences and don't be shy.
Also, who loves science fiction? This is the place to discuss that as well.
<img src="http://blogs.poz.com/paul/mad_scientist.gif">;
![http://blogs.poz.com/paul/mad_scientist.gif">](http://blogs.poz.com/paul/mad_scientist.gif">){kind=link}
I've opened up this thread so that sciences can be discussed. We begin with this small introduction. Tell us how you feel about sciences and don't be shy.
Also, who loves science fiction? This is the place to discuss that as well.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
LOL
I never thought I'd teach science, and I think I learn more in teaching it than they do in me teaching them, but I try to make it fun. One of my students is going to show us a Rube Goldberg machine he built today. (Not an assignment - he did it on his own!)
I love math and physics. The complexities of linear algebra and transform calculus alone can only leave the mind to wonder what kind of geniuses have graced this earth to theorize these things.
Physics is my passion though, and it is such a broad topic. My studies focus mainly on statics and the mechanics of materials under stress and strain but I will always have a soft spot for the dynamics of bodies in motion.
I once took an Astrophysics course as a complementary to my studies and I will never regret it. It taught me a great deal about the universe. From the formation of our solar system to the nuclear reactions on the sun that give us energy. It's very interesting stuff.
I'll stop now. :-@
http://scienceislam.com/pdf/Big_Bang.pdf
The author's argument, if I'm not mistaken, is that the Big Bang Theory should be refuted based on its idea of creating-a-complex-universe-out-of-nothing being similar to suggesting that an explosion of Silicon Valley could elegantly drop down fully functional computers. I can agree on the latter being utterly ridiculous, however I refuse to accept the parallel as valid.
Firstly, a computer is an intricately engineered, man-made machine, built to perform mathematical operations which obey human logic and serve human purposes. It follows a technological design and in fact executes non-spontaneous processes. It cannot sustain itself, procreate or even evolve without the involvement of people (not yet anyway). The universe, on the contrary, follows simple physical and chemical laws and isn’t in any way prone to human instructions. It does evolve spontaneously and without the interference of technology. Also, it can quite easily exist without electronic devises built to enable artificial thinking and mimicking, in many ways, our brain. If anything, a computer is man’s attempt at supplying us with a nanocosmos where pretty much the same interactions between mass and energy occur. Unfortunately, we can’t quite get there, which demonstrates our feeble skills and teaches us valuable lessons in modesty.
Furthermore, the universe makes perfect sense when one applies the same rules and laws of physics and chemistry that one can apply to everyday life and that only fools would refuse to accept these days. The only reason a computer makes sense is because we build it to make sense. We force it to work by imposing extra rules upon it, rules which do not naturally exist in our cosmos. In our absence, they would be sitting there and do nothing. The universe, however, would – and will! – live on in our absence. To conclude this, allow me to state that we can perfectly grasp how a computer, a car or a chair get made, how they ‘work’, what every tiny little particle in their system does and so forth. The universe, and even the author of the text has to agree with this, isn’t fully understood by us yet. Even then, we, the so-called ‘scientists’ (as he contemptuously writes), at least try to understand and by god we’ve come very far already. Our understanding of the universe has cleared the path to building satellites, putting a man on the moon, launching Voyager, etc. What have those ‘magicians’ ever done to explain the universe? They refuse falsification of their theories, which almost by definition makes them dishonest advocates of their theories. They refuse to sit down and criticize their own thinking. They stubbornly cling to untested, unverified theories and refuse the power of observation, empirical research and so forth, which is why their contributions to understanding the world are few, if any, and which is also why they constantly try to set us back, instead of allow us to grow even more knowledgeable. One thing I know is that science, at least, has resulted in clearly visible applications.
I will agree that The Big Bang theory is still ‘just’ a theory and could still be improved, purified and better understood. [However, there's no such thing as 'just a theory' in science. I phrased that sentence against my personal scientific purism.] At least we allow a theory to grow more valid – at least we allow it to be criticized. Had Allah ‘just’ dropped us down out of complete nothingness (a contradiction in the author’s plead should become clear at this point), he’d be a pretty cold-hearted entity to not allow us to wonder where we come from through empirical thinking, since he has given us the power of intellectual and critical reasoning anyway. In fact, I’d argue that treating a divine force as a magician who refuses to disclose his tricks is an insult to said divinity. This in one of the reasons I can practice religion and science with an open mind and without feeling guilty towards one or the other.
I work in a medical profession where it is obvious that things don´t work according to strict rules, yet I find the learning of certain chemical, physical and mechanical facts increasingly important. I consider myself a rather spiritual man, yet I don´t see any opposition or contradiction between science and spirituality. Both are reflections of the same thing IMO. One problem is that both in science and in religion a lot of distortions are taken as truth by many people.
I was never much good at science, history is more my thing
lately I've been interested to see how religion, philosophy and science have historically been seen as related and overlapping in other cultures, whereas, as having been raised in european culture, I had tended view them as separate and almost mutually exclusive
As for religion, I'm agnostic. My theory has always been that religion was used to explain what was scientifically unknown at the time (i.e. God created the Heavens and Earth). Over time, science has disproved many concepts from religion. Think about how far advanced we'd be now if it weren't for the Dark Ages where religion pretty much supressed science for hundreds of years. Especially in the field of health sciences.
To all the science teachers on here (well all of the teachers on MI6), thank you for what you do. Hopefully you get to mold the one mind who makes a breakthrough or discovery in their particular area.
Leaving out the control-oriented aspect that has crept over time probably into every organization that represents religion, a fundamental religious (or maybe spiritual is the better term) idea is the communication of knowledge to humankind from a higher instance, from above to below so to speak.
At the same time, whoever or whatever created humankind fitted them with a considerable intellectual capacity and the ability to learn and extrapolate from observation, thus discovering the world from an inside point of view, or from below up so to speak.
Those two ways of learning are both valid approaches, they are complementary and shouldn´t be cause for confusion.
At scool Arithmetic (Dutch name: Rekenen) i whas good/very good, after iam bored i get some Mathematics ( That's what i think with Science. Dutch name: Wiskunde) later but that be to much for me. In specialy names of Arithmetic things i never learn or there lean the alturnatief names. Sometimes also the teachter did not know it or in my eyes have to much of a dificult explanation.
I know 1/2 is the same as 2/4 and 10mm is the same as 1cm but you should not ask me what 5/2 x 6/4 be. Because it is already be almost 11 years a go i finished with the final scool where you can learn this kind of things, i also think i vergot already how much cl 1ltr be. A bit strange for one someone who have work in the kitchen, but it also not be one of the returning element in the studie.
5x4/2x4 x 6x2/4x2 = 20/8 x 12/8 = 240/8 = 30/1
How about your affection with Sci Fi?
Personally I used to be very good at mathematics. Now though, I regret I'm not. I did however a short stint at the Haarlem University for Aeronautical Engineering (Hogeschool Haarlem), which nowedays has moved to Delft and is called InHolland. Not that I was very good, I found Aerodynamics extremely difficult, but I got fascinated by the science behind strengths and weaknesses in metallurgical compounts. Forging metal is something amazing. Seeing what happens if you heat steel quickly or slowly, what happens when you add carbon, just...fascinating.
You're an engineer as well? My degree says I'm one. However, I feel more like a scientist than an engineer.
If Wells was able to predict all sorts of the modern technology we have today, including wireless communications, space travel, lasers, invisibility, and Verne was able to predict the modern submarine, telephones, wire-guided missiles, and advanced space flight, why don't we see people predicting other things in our future?
I feel like the modern time period doesn't have these great imaginations to lead the science of invention. We're still stuck on lasers and invisibility! Why don't we have people coming up with this sort of stuff?
#JWESTBROOK I kind of agree with you. I think these days science moves ahead of fiction, though. The bounderies are being pushed every day.
The big thing, however, would be that science evolves rapidly and it's become a lot tougher for fiction writers to stay ahead of it. I suspect that right now someone is having a field day predicting certain elementary particles or strange string theory effects for the sake of a Sci Fi novel.
Interesting question you bring up, @JWESTBROOK!
And I suppose it is true that science is more commonly accepted, well genuinely accepted these days, and advances must faster than in Wells and Verne's time.
But it is indeed very hard to sit down and think whats next. Those guys had some healthy imaginations.
I like Sagan for his humanitarian outlook on science. I feel like he understood how science could aid our race and our planet, and that was his focus. I love that famous excerpt from Pale Blue Dot. What a poet! Sagan made/makes science easy to understand and follow, and his words make you fell.. good.. inside. Thats something I can't credit my chemistry teacher with!
Steven Soderbergh, Solaris = awesome.