Random Thought Thread

Oh, here's an interesting thought experiment. Let's say two twins are born in Saudi Arabia and one is kidnapped and whisked away to Kansas. So the one grows up a devout Muslim and the other is an evangelical Christian. One day they're reunited and the one is absolutely certain the other one is wrong and going to hell. They're both certain. Completely certain.

Which one is right???

Well, the Christian obviously...
 
Lorien said:
I liken this 'belief' in a flat earth to religion, to me it's the same kind of thing. Which is one of the reasons why no amount of evidence or thoughtful argument will change the believer's mind. The bias toward maintaining belief is simply too strong.

My skepticism has always been focused on belief, while others' skepticism may be focused on theory. I prefer theory because it can and should be dynamic, as new evidence presents itself. I don't have to hold true to a set of concepts and can reject obsolete theories and I find freedom in that mode of being.

As opposed to belief, which is static and unchangeable. Where integrity is based upon clinging as tightly as possible to whatever precepts a particular belief demands.

I think that's probably the oldest of humankind's dichotomies and no argument on the internet will ever change anyone's mind. Those arguments only serve to reinforce whatever confirmation bias most individuals seek out and work to maintain.

Of course, none of you should give a shit about my opinion on the subject since my opinion is as meaningless as anyone else who isn't in a position of influence. It's all just conversation.

Imo.
Click to expand...
Yes.
People think that physics will tell them how things are, but really there are levels and layers of useful models. Some basic aspects of a rainbow can be explained with a simple ray model, whereas some subtleties need a quantum description of light. There are several levels in between. A pragmatic way is to use only the necessary level of complexity but be aware of limitations.
 
Last edited:
Richard338 said:
You'll have to tell me what you think this implies here.
Click to expand...

from wikipedia
Second Law Of Thermodynamics
''One simple statement of the law is that heat always moves "downhill", that is, from hotter objects to colder objects, unless energy is supplied to reverse the direction of heat flow''

This applies to the gasses in Earth's atmosphere and space correct? My understanding is that the ''hot'' particles of our atmosphere should rush ''downhill'' or toward the cooler region of open space to reach equilibrium with it?
 
tinfoil hat timmy said:
from wikipedia
Second Law Of Thermodynamics
''One simple statement of the law is that heat always moves "downhill", that is, from hotter objects to colder objects, unless energy is supplied to reverse the direction of heat flow''

This applies to the gasses in Earth's atmosphere and space correct? My understanding is that the ''hot'' particles of our atmosphere should rush ''downhill'' or toward the cooler region of open space to reach equilibrium with it?
Click to expand...
The textbook examples are of diffusion. Diffusion of matter (concentration or pressure) or heat. You can derive pressure and the ideal gas law just by thinking about non-interacting particles bouncing around a container. However, these examples usually don't include gravity or solar radiation. Without gravity the molecules would randomly bounce around and soon explore remote regions, they'd be gone as you say. Gravity holds them close to the earth. I'll try to find a little kinetic gas simulator app that we used to use in class. It has atoms bouncing around to help visualize. You can even turn on gravity.
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
Oh, here's an interesting thought experiment. Let's say two twins are born in Saudi Arabia and one is kidnapped and whisked away to Kansas. So the one grows up a devout Muslim and the other is an evangelical Christian. One day they're reunited and the one is absolutely certain the other one is wrong and going to hell. They're both certain. Completely certain.

Which one is right???
Click to expand...

Religion is like politics.

No point in "discussing it" because both sides think that they are absolutely "right," especially these days when there seems to be no middle ground and when only the "mightier" (in the battlefield and/or at the ballot box) will be "right" because only those that "win" get to say who or what was "right."
 
sgt1372 said:
Religion is like politics.

No point in "discussing it" because both sides think that they are absolutely "right," especially these days when there seems to be no middle ground and when only the "mightier" (in the battlefield and/or at the ballot box) will be "right" because only those that "win" get to say who or what was "right."
Click to expand...
It's honestly a bit depressing. The lack of open-minded discussion and thought.
 
sgt1372 said:
Religion is like politics.

No point in "discussing it" because both sides think that they are absolutely "right," especially these days when there seems to be no middle ground and when only the "mightier" (in the battlefield and/or at the ballot box) will be "right" because only those that "win" get to say who or what was "right."
Click to expand...
I think you are correct and I should not have drug the subject in here.
 
In Tim's defense, not that he ever asked for it and I really ought not be offering it, there seems to be confusion between science and philosophy. While there is certainly bad science, the scientific field is much better at purging itself from bad and terrible ideas/theories/hypothesis. Philosophy on the other hand can morph into terrible conspiracies because of some unfettered imaginations. When Einstein had said, "imagination is more important than knowledge" he should've further qualified it by adding that possessing some solid knowledge to start with would be the foundation and the baseline to such quote!
 
sgt1372 said:
Religion is like politics.

No point in "discussing it" because both sides think that they are absolutely "right," especially these days when there seems to be no middle ground and when only the "mightier" (in the battlefield and/or at the ballot box) will be "right" because only those that "win" get to say who or what was "right."
Click to expand...


I will be able to tell my children that once upon a time, a long time ago, there was moderation in politics and the two sides could see one another's points of view and even if they disagreed over something they could at least see the other person's perspective and compromises could be made which, overall, worked out to the betterment of both sides.

... those were days
 
tinfoil hat timmy said:
Is gravity an actual law of science or widely accepted theory?


Have there been experiments that can reproduce gravitational pull of an object?
it would be awesome to find out that there are...
Click to expand...

Yes! There have been tons of experiments to reproduce gravitational pull of an object. It involves assembling a mass and then measuring its gravitational pull.

Have they ever created a gravitational pull without assembling a mass? No, of course not. To the best of our understanding, that's not how gravity works.

Now here's something that'll blow your mind. Non Newtonian physics. Gravity distorts (or is a distortion of) SpaceTime.

With the creation of finer and finer and more accurate measuring devices, we can actually now measure a gravity field through the use of very high precision clocks. They are actually able to determine how close they are to the Earth by the rate at which they count time. And they can detect the presence of mass due to its slowing of time. Pretty bananas stuff that was predicted by general relativity and has been measured by experimentation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top