Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Scientific progress.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 4:32

We are not discoverring any new laws of physics, string theory has been in the hypothesis stage since the mid 70s and things like DNA and computers are just complex arrangements of existing knowledge.

Has science reached the point where the only thing left to do is invent?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 5:53 (sage)

Wow. You fail so horribly it's not even funny. You're the kind of idiot that journalists manufacture.

Science is moving faster now than it ever has before. Biology is probably the fastest moving science right now; more has been learned in the past 20 years than in the past few centuries. The new LHC is opening in CERN next year, and particle physics is going to literally explode. This is the most exciting time to be a scientist, and it clearly shows that you aren't one.

Sage for blatant ignorance and sheer idiocy. Become an hero, kthxbai.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 6:06

the LHC finding anything interesting is about as likely as it creating a black hole that eats up the solar system. Which is pretty fucking unlikely.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 6:23

New things are being discovered all the time. The people in Newton's time didn't know about his laws and stuff, until after a while, when it became widely accepted. Einstein was just a quack, until a solar eclipse showed evidence of GR.

Likewise, the Afshar experiment which the common guy has never heard of at all, and as revolutionary as it may be, is still being discussed and debated, until it's disproved or strong evidence is available.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 6:53

>>2

Become an hero, kthxbai.

Actually, it would be 'a' hero. If you can't spell, don't sage my posts

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 11:26

>>5
lurk more lolrofl

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 12:30

Scientific progress goes "boink."

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 13:13 (sage)

>>5
Actually, it would be 'a' hero. If you can't spell, don't sage my posts
I lol'd! Have you been living under a rock lately?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 13:45 (sage)

>>5
Actually, it would be 'a' hero. If you can't spell, don't sage my posts
Welcome to 4chon.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-31 16:05 (sage)

>>5
Holy shit, you fucking suck. Your topic sux btw.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 1:57

>>5
Yowsa. Here's some Claritin for ya:

"become an hero" is 4chan for "kill yourself via gunshot wound to the left temple."

"lurk moar" is 4chan for "don't fucking post until you have at least some vague understanding of 4chan's culture and dialect."

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 3:10

>>1
No, but modern scientific has lost much of it's innovativiness due to taking theories as truths. Also new inventions are never popular when they're new. It takes atleast 10 years and sometimes more than 50 years. Also most military R&D is highly classified and they like to show off only old stuff.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 16:15

>>12
>No, but modern scientific has lost much of it's innovativiness due to taking theories as truths.

Buh? You're religious, aren't you. gtfo my /sci/

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-01 19:43

>>13
No, I'm an agnostic and I believe(note word believe) in evolution if that's what you're thinking. I just feel that today's scientific community lacks adventurous and visionary spirit of 1800s and early 1900s.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 4:14

>>14
How so?

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 4:36

>>15
Wild theories are typically greatly ridiculed even if they make sense and then there's some areas scientist refuse to delve in. Such as in archeology we got lots of interesting unexcavated areas, but no-one's willing to explore them. There's also some technology we have forgotten, but sadly no-one wants to develop them further even though they do have potential. I feel that this is harmful to research and innovation. It wasn't like this in beginning, but I guess it's just that scientific community has become old and senile.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 5:03

>>16
Not senile. Just bureaucratic.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 5:37

It's because these days scientists work in groups and don't socialise much with the ignorant masses. (talking about science is taboo, anyone notice that? People don't want to feel dumb.) This automatically excludes any of those 1800-era rich eccentrics that used to do shit back then.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 10:16

>>18
But being dumb is cool, anyone notice that?

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 11:28

>>19
Being dumb sucks sure there's an ebuild for being dumb but it just get dropped to /opt, it's statically linked, and it's CLOSED SOURCE, whitch means that it is a BINARY package.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-02 23:59

>>16
>>14
This is completely the opposite of how science is today. Remember the Cold Fusion fiasco? Those quacks got a STANDING OVATION at the semi-annual American Chemical Society conference. Wild theories and claims are being made all the time.

In fact these wild claims you crave are often what is polluting science because that's all that journalists report, so that's all that idiots like you hear about.

You're a fucking idiot. You could not be more uneducated and misinformed.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-03 0:14

>>21
Explain to me why we don't utilise enviromental static electricity to charge small batteries? Why we haven't even tried wireless electricity Tesla style? Why we haven't explored location of face anomaly in Mars to ultimately bury or prove that myth? Why we dig out in Egypt daily, but no-one's seemingly interested in other ruins? Why there's only little interest in Viktor Schauberger's replusin even though it's proven to work on small scale? There's just some examples of what I mean.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-03 2:03

>>22
hahaha you've been trolled by cranks. wireless electricity? learn real science newb.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-03 2:15

>>22

Indeed, go read a fucking book.  The Mars "face" was disproven years ago.  Another satelite got a better picture and it's a completely natural rock formation that happened to look like a face because of the way the shadows fell on it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-03 2:16

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-03 2:18

>>24
Why it looks like face again in newest satellite photos from 2001? In 1998 pictures it doesn't look like face at all though.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-03 6:04

>>26
Spoiler: Shadows move.

Name: OP 2006-08-03 7:46

>>2
You completely passed my argument by which was the distinction between the discovery of new physical laws and the discovery and invention of new ways of manipulating the material world. The advances in biology fit into my argument since they are just discoveries which can already be explained with existing physics. When particle physcis explodes come back here and gloat, until then you are either a complete idiot or since you've written more than me a failed troll.

"Become an hero, kthxbai."

>>3
It seems so, but just because some troll/dumbass turns up and thinks otherwise there is no need to dismiss the possibilities completely.

>>4
Scientific method has moved on since the early 20th century. We don't make mistakes like this anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment
We may discover the theory of everything in the next 50 years, or string theory may remain mathematics for centuries. It appears the only thing we can do is make our measurements more precise.

>>5 I didn't write that :/

>>12
I believe this is exactly what is happenning. As we discoverred, then tried to explain the 4 forces we honed in on the supposed theory of everything, finding simpler explanations as we went down. However as we discoverred complex arrangements in the universe around us and invented new ways to manipulate materials, this allowed more avenues to cross ideas and inventions and to create, analyse and invent more. At the moment we know how to create and manipulate a huge myriad of things in the physical world and as we progress into higher levels of complexity we will only open up more opportunities.

>>14
I disagree, it merely takes more time to find ways of doing things efficiently and giving them value.

>>16
Give examples of technology that has been forgotten.

>>21
This is true, but concerning core scientific institutions this sort of thing is rare because with intelligence comes a need to be sure you are looking at reality and not jump up, cock in hand, and say "i can maek bubbles make little lights omg it is cold fusion!!".

>>22
Don't be silly. There is no way to store such a huge amount of energy from a lightning strike as quickly as it lasts. 'Wireless' electricity is pointlessly inefficient because a huge amount of energy is lost as the wave generated expands, we'll stick to using it to pass information or transmitting energy from space if NASA ever realises they were being dumbasses making the shuttle and decides to make a large cargo plane with a super ram-scram jet and rocket combo engine. If not we'll have to wait for a private company to do it, virgin has already treaded in this area. The mars rock is the only one of it's kind and hardly looks like a face, it was a coincidence. The repulsin is just an attempt to use a vortex to create a region of sub-pressure above an aircraft, it is less efficient than using helicopter blades, I don't see why people think it is brilliant just because "omg it's saucer shaped!! we are becomming like gray aliens!!".

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-03 9:38

>>Give examples of technology that has been forgotten.

Uh.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-04 15:54

a relatively new theory suggests that the laws of physics possibly aren't the same everywhere in the universe.

document film about said subject: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1061497083537863087

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List