[Discussion] Your thoughts on today's sciences.

[T.O.T.A.L.W.A.R 581]

So you are impliying that we should have a war to fast-forward technological progress... interesting...

 

I can't deny that WW1 and WW2 delivered many new inventions, but I must point out the costs were high (millions of humans).

:D ,Am not implying , am just stating how things work when it comes to technological advancements.

[shadewarttt 3,350]

here are 6 things i think its scientifically impossible to do:

1.travelling at or faster than speed of light.

2. explain why does magnet attract/repel things. are its atoms special or what? (not sure if its explained or not)

3. explain how conciousness originate and works

4. explain why we feel pain.

5. explain how universe was created. how big bang was created (if that theory is 100% right)

6. proove or disprove if god exists or not

Not for Type 2 and above civilizations. 

[7919zola 252]

So you are impliying that we should have a war to fast-forward technological progress... interesting...

 

I can't deny that WW1 and WW2 delivered many new inventions, but I must point out the costs were high (millions of humans).

Before I begin, I'm always open to your's, as well as other's opinions; and I unconditionally respect that. ;) As a response to your comment, I agree with you, but also wish to ask you this. Were the "millions of humans" that were lost necessarily in vain though? 

 

As @T.O.T.A.L.W.A.R already mentioned, it's unfortunate, but true that a substantial degree of advances within the fields of science and medicine (oh, and don't forget technology... if you consider it a science) only occur as a direct result of human conflict, or war. Sure, a great deal of advances and innovation during war are directed primarily to 'defeat the enemy'; but in all this death and destruction, we find glimpses of positive, humanly-morale (if that's even possible) innovation and improvement. 

 

Take these for example - 

 

Let's take a look at the field of medicine. Hmm, the first and most obvious example that comes to mind (at least for myself) is Penicillin. But wait, wasn't Penicillin discovered by accident between WWI and WWII, and therefore not a direct outcome of wartime progress and advancement? Yes and no. While it is true that Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928, it's arguable that his motivation for research and eventual discovery was influenced by war (just not immediately), in attempt to prevent further human loss to disease. Fleming's horrendous experiences during WWI (being a rank of , for reals) as a battlefield doctor, is often what's recounted as his inspiration for later becoming a bacteriologist. Would he have still became a scientist of medicine or discovered Penicillium mold had he not been sent off for war, or come across that horrid scope of reality that no man, or woman, should ever have to endure? Who knows. So maybe, just maybe, the sudden and unexpected discovery of Penicillin occurred in-between global conflicts; but maybe, just maybe, his atrocious encounters that transpired during war inadvertently, 'down the line' lead to the introduction of Penicillin. And surely, myself nor anyone else, can wholeheartedly say that the eventual creation of Penicillin is not a +1 for society.

 

One more example, just for reinforcement. Nuclear energy. Yes, yes, nuclear energy. The oh-so harbinger of death and total annihilator. Yet ironically, it deterred the use of itself in modern warfare (no, no, not the game, but the military term). Oh but wait, I'm referring to nuclear weaponry, not nuclear energy. But alas, we can't have one without the other. So nuclear energy. Interesting... had it not been for the Manhattan Project, we wouldn't have nuclear weaponry and energy; at least, not as soon. Sure, other countries, such as the U.S.S.R. also developed their own customized version of this weapon of war, but of course, later on. (I don't feel obliged to cite and credit all of the other countries that helped bring about nuclear weapons; but these are the two most common text book examples) What I'm getting at is this. While this invention (debatably) show-cased the worst of human inventiveness, it still had a silver lining to it. After all, you can only develop nuclear weaponry with the science and knowledge of how nuclear energy works. And now that deterrence ran the game (and hopefully continues to), we had to do something else with this newly developed field of science. So what did we do? We used nuclear energy to benefit humanity. Clean (mostly?) energy that now helps power a great extent of our society. *hooray, air five* For once, humanity got something right. Out of all this mess and disorder we managed to again pull something positive out of the grips of war. (don't quote me on that)

 

So what was all this rambling on and on about? Why did I make you or anyone else go through the torture of reading what I wrote typed, when they could of effortlessly passed it up? Or waste their time reading my rubbish, that they could potentially and entirely disagree with? Easy. To get my simple point across. (don't forget, still human and open to contrasting opinions) As ferocious and inhumane as war can be, it always presents itself hand-in-hand with scientific, technological, and don't forget medical; advancement.

 

And just to make it clear, I'm not fond of, nor aspire war, but I merely point out its 'break in the clouds'. So in conclusion, (yes, I know, finally) would you, or anyone else I suppose, consider those "millions" of lives to be lost in vain? 

 

Not for Type 2 and above civilizations. 

Well, then it's impossible for human civilization, at least. We're such novices, dare I say, newbies, in the cosmological scale and measure of civilizations (Kardashev Scale). Type 0 *pfft*...  -_- Might as well be type -1. 

appologize for short response, was a bit exhausted ;p

[shadewarttt 3,350]

Well, then it's impossible for human civilization, at least. We're such novices, dare I say, newbies, in the cosmological scale and measure of civilizations (Kardashev Scale). Type 0 *pfft*...  -_- Might as well be type -1. 

appologize for short response, was a bit exhausted ;p

We'll reach Class 1 within the next 150 years.

Edited July 14, 2015 by shadewarttt

[viratno2 146]

technological boom in last 10 years. i really didnt expect such an advancement. but like someone above me, war is one of the most powerful weapons, especially biological warfare. think of lakhs of people dying bcause of a disease that needed 0 cash for using

[vanshajwore 324]

Two questions:-

1-if energy can niether be created nor be destroyed, then how come the existing energy came into existence?

2-if light has no mass (or very very little mass) then how does it have so much momentum, and even if it has so much momentum, how come it doesn't exert any thrust on any object with so much momentum

[Quarks 2,255]

Today's sciences make me feel stupid.

[personia 4,036]

here are 6 things i think its scientifically impossible to do:

1.travelling at or faster than speed of light.

2. explain why does magnet attract/repel things. are its atoms special or what? (not sure if its explained or not)

3. explain how conciousness originate and works

4. explain why we feel pain.

5. explain how universe was created. how big bang was created (if that theory is 100% right)

6. proove or disprove if god exists or not

1. That's scientifically impossible. 

2. A magnet repels and attracts things because it has been magnetized. It basically is making a magnetic field, whic repels or attracts it to other fields. 

3. Basically, this is unknown, although it is thought to be stored in many neurons firing in your brain.

4. Oooh yay, one I can answer well. Pain is caused by tissue damaging stimulus activating nocioceptors. These sensory nerves fire electrical impulses to the brain, as well as putting out noxious stimulation. They brain responds by firing electrical impulses to the motor neurons to move them away from the pain. 

5. How the heck is anyone supposed to explain that?! One theory is that new universes are created by thte singularities of black hoes expanding out into the nothingness (or what ever the place outside the universe is called... Another theory is called God. Not really a theory if you ask me. More of a reality...

6. Can't be stuffed. That requires a whole topic on its own.

 

Two questions:-

1-if energy can niether be created nor be destroyed, then how come the existing energy came into existence?

2-if light has no mass (or very very little mass) then how does it have so much momentum, and even if it has so much momentum, how come it doesn't exert any thrust on any object with so much momentum

1. Through the big bang, or God or both...

2. Light can act as both a wave and a partical. And light has no momentum. It has a heck of a lot of speed.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

2. A magnet repels and attracts things because it has been magnetized. It basically is making a magnetic field, whic repels or attracts it to other fields. 

Well that does tell us how does it.

You are made of atoms, the chair you're sitting on is made of atoms. An atom is mostly empty space so what stops you from just falling through the chair and into the ground? There are forces going on at the microscopic level that most of don't even think about. The forces involved that stop you from falling through your chair are similar to magnetic forces but you will find that in certain materials, you can align the billions of atoms of which they are made in such a way that they all point in the same direction, amplifying their pulling or repulsion power allowing us to feel it at the macroscopic level. I'm no scientist but I do love listening to scientists talk. I don't realise how much of it sticks with me. Love science!