What is really real ?

Home Forums Discussion Topics What is really real ?

This topic contains 125 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Mari 3 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 121 through 126 (of 126 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20407

    ulvfugl
    Keymaster

    Yes. Well, I hate all that stuff. I think it alienates people from themselves and from nature and drives them mad.

    I think the closer one lives to nature and to animals, wildlife, the better. Animals are great teachers.

    #21049

    ulvfugl
    Keymaster

    The magic ingredient common to all three items is the quasiperiodic crystal, the “impossible” atomic arrangement discovered by Dan Shechtman in 1982. Basically, a quasicrystal is a crystalline structure that breaks the periodicity (meaning it has translational symmetry, or the ability to shift the crystal one unit cell without changing the pattern) of a normal crystal for an ordered, yet aperiodic arrangement. This means that quasicrystalline patterns will fill all available space, but in such a way that the pattern of its atomic arrangement never repeats. Glotzer and Engel recently managed to simulate the most complex quasicrystal ever, a discovery which may revolutionize the field of crystallography by blowing open the door for a whole host of applications that were previously inconceivable outside of science-fiction, like making yourself invisible or shape-shifting robots.

    While most of the current applications of quasicrystals are rather mundane, such as the coating for frying pans or surgical utensils, Glotzer and Engel’s simulation of a self-assembling icosahedral quasicrystal opens up exciting new avenues for research and development, such as improved camouflage.

    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-impossible-matter

    #21361

    Mari
    Participant

    Popper seems unpoppular in some quarters…

    Jim Baggott -against falsificationism

    “Many practicing theorists and quite a few experimentalists of my acquaintance are very dismissive of the philosophy of science, with one notable Nobel Prize-winner once declaring that:1

    ‘This is not to deny all value to the philosophy of science, much of which has nothing to do with science. I do not even mean to deny all value to the philosophy of science, which at its best seems to me a pleasing gloss on the history and discoveries of science. But we should not expect it to provide today’s scientists with any useful guidance about how to go about their work or about what they are likely to find.’

    http://www.jimbaggott.com/articles/against-falsifiability/

    continuum

    #21365

    ulvfugl
    Keymaster

    I think that the reason why that large sum of money goes to those particular people, doing that sort of research, is because the funders are pandering to the contemporary dumbed down American LegoLand version of science, which has very little to do with the quest for truth, but a great deal to do with corporate sponsorship and distracting the masses from the war crimes and economic disaster, as the US Empire grinds ever closer toward catastrophe.

    That kind of fantasy Disneyfied science where astrophysicists come up with a new wacky sci fi theory every week is perfect for ‘science as infotainment’ to fill the MSM with a few headlines and fill the morons heads with some talking points that make them think they are being ‘smart’.

    #21600

    Mari
    Participant

    I don’t mind losing Time,… but Space, too?
    Nima says Spacetime is doomed 🙁

    #21711

    Mari
    Participant

    ‘Consider the seed of your generation:
    You were not born to live like animals
    But to pursue virtue and possess knowledge.’
    Dante

Viewing 6 posts - 121 through 126 (of 126 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.