[2011-Aug-07] Actually, it's an octahedron.

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :?: :idea: :| (o~o) :geek: :[] :geek2: :][>:=~+:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [2011-Aug-07] Actually, it's an octahedron.

Re: (07 August 2011) Actually, it's an octahedron.

by Quintushalls » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:48 pm

sotic wrote:I'd say that "God" is, in this case, a metaphor for nature, e.g. God abhors a vacuum.
I wouldn't say God is nature. In science, I would say God is a metaphor for the unknown.

"What happened before the big bang? God or something..."

Re: (07 August 2011) Actually, it's an octahedron.

by sotic » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:25 pm

I'd say that "God" is, in this case, a metaphor for nature, e.g. God abhors a vacuum.

Re: (07 August 2011) Actually, it's an octahedron.

by gavin » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:43 pm

Eisbreaker wrote:
Nielsen counters that nature might allow a small number of Higgs to be produced by the Tevatron, but would prevent the production of the large number of particles the LHC is anticipated to produce. He also acknowledges that Higgs particles are probably produced in cosmic collisions, but says it's impossible to know whether nature has stopped a great deal of these collisions from happening. "It's possible that God avoids Higgs [particles] only when there are very many of them, but if there are a few, maybe He let's them go," he says.
Derp.

This is why religious (making an assumption here, he could very well be deist but what I am about to say likely still applies to that) people should, in my opinion, not deal in science. Religion and science are two fundamentally different approaches, the first seeks to prove an existing agenda by looking for evidence that fits, the latter seeks to find new answers based on evidence that exists.

I think you can see how Mr. Nielson's approach is fucking up our science. >:|
Wait... he uses Nature and God synonymously?

Re: (07 August 2011) Actually, it's an octahedron.

by Eisbreaker » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Nielsen counters that nature might allow a small number of Higgs to be produced by the Tevatron, but would prevent the production of the large number of particles the LHC is anticipated to produce. He also acknowledges that Higgs particles are probably produced in cosmic collisions, but says it's impossible to know whether nature has stopped a great deal of these collisions from happening. "It's possible that God avoids Higgs [particles] only when there are very many of them, but if there are a few, maybe He let's them go," he says.
Derp.

This is why religious (making an assumption here, he could very well be deist but what I am about to say likely still applies to that) people should, in my opinion, not deal in science. Religion and science are two fundamentally different approaches, the first seeks to prove an existing agenda by looking for evidence that fits, the latter seeks to find new answers based on evidence that exists.

I think you can see how Mr. Nielson's approach is fucking up our science. >:|

Re: (07 August 2011) Actually, it's an octahedron.

by Quintushalls » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:23 am

I have totally seen scientists act like pundits.

"We haven't found the Higgs-Boson particle and our equipment keeps shutting down. hmm..."

Thinks for a minute.

"I know! Our future selves have sent a bird back in time to prevent us from continuing our research."

But-? But-? But-?

"It is known!" :geek:

Actual article: http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 70,00.html

Re: (07 August 2011) Actually, it's an octahedron.

by sotic » Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:44 pm

Speaking of Time Cube (at least, that's what I think is being referenced here), there's a really funny shirt that I would get if I didn't already have too many shirts.

[2011-Aug-07] Actually, it's an octahedron.

by ChaoticBrain » Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:31 pm

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2330

I find it weird that Fry of all people questions the reliability of a scientist's perspective.

Top