Shinjula

You seem to be expanding the few areas I mentioned which I thought could do with an overhaul to absolutely everything, that's not at all what I said. I never said everything must be represented precisely. I'm am not remotely suggesting changing the way symbolic equations in chemstry are represented, with no knowledge of the subject I would have no idea what I was doing. I'm merely talking about reinforcing certain ideas about the reality of the quantum mechanical world, really really simply things to be done in the classroom in early science teaching. Like when you are 'drawing' an atom on a blackboard, not drawing it made out of spheres but of fuzzy areas. Renaming Newtons Laws to Newtons approximations seems also quite reasonable to me, we know they aren't representative of whats happening so why on earth would we call it a law? As for kids not understanding relativity simply because they cant handle the maths, thats simply not true, theres many degrees of understanding. Take, for instance, gravity. A child can easily be taught the gravity is not just things fall downwards, but that things attract each other without having to know anything about the equations that govern the relationship, when they are older and can get a grasp of the idea of mass, they can then learn that it is mass and distance which create the relationship between the force and the objects, and then later on they can discover the inverse square relationship. They dont suddenly acquire understanding of gravity in the very last stage and up to then there was no understanding, its steps of simple to complex pictures. Obviously the simple pictures are going to convey less information and will by neccessity be in many senses wrong, and I'm not suggesting it can be done any other way. However, if we can give them a slightly better map to the universe with the simple changes to the way it is taught, then lets do that. From what I've observed of my neice, she genuinely does have an understanding of relativity comparable to her understanding of optics and forces, shes not old so these understandings at a primitive level, but when the time comes (if she chooses those subjects) for her to learn about relativity she is not going to be remotely surprised, she will just go "Oh so thats the equation that governs that then." and she wont need any paradigm shift. I dont agree with your argument for "the wonderful revelation", if that were the case we might as well teach our children about the four humours in biology as the basis for life, so that when they eventually get to the point where they learn the truth about how the body works they will also have a wonderful revelation abuot how much medicine has progressed. From a more sensible perspective, consider there are multiple reactions which occur, although the wonderful revelation does occur, and much much more common reaction is that of "So you were lying to us?", a reaction I've seen so many times in classrooms. It's not neccessarily rational, but it is responsible for a lot of people turning away from science because they feel they cannot trust it. (Obviously there is another half of that in teaching correctly that it is the scientific method which is important there is no objective truth - but in tandem with that they do still need to be taught with an eye on the latest science)

No I'm sorry but thats just daft. Yes obviously I'm not suggesting we give precise descriptions of quantum mechanical processes to 7 year olds. But clearly you didnt read the last paragraph which says the sort of thing I *AM* talking about. Showing the electrons as a fuzzy blob instead of a precise sphere is not a difficult thing to do. And it starts the process of teaching people about the correct view of the universe. People really do think that atoms are spheres of material and its wrong, you know its wrong just as much as I do, why would you want to perpetuate this sort of thing, when there are plenty of small ways to easily illustrate the correct view? A good example of correct viewpoint easily adapted to the classroom is benzene. When benzene rings are drawn in chemistry they're draw as a hexagon with a circle in the centre, as opposed to how they could be draw as six double bonds, the circle reminds people that the electrons are disassociated. This is how benzene is always shown including in high school (and earlier) chemistry where a good description of what's happening is easily encapsulated in a tiny drawing.It's this sort of thing I'm talking about introducing to physics. Re Time dilation, what I'd suggest is renaming 'Newtons Laws' to 'Newtons Approximations', there's simply no cause to call something a law which is known to be untrue. Its not a radical step, it would change little except serve to remind students exactly what sort of information they are learning. As for blowing kids minds away, that is purely because of the fact that you've been taught from an early age the the universe is newtonian, which is why it comes as a complete shock. As an experiment when my niece was 5, I taught her all about lorenz contractions, to see how well she did and to see how much of it she would accept, and I was blown away that she just completely took it and ran with it. I obviously didnt derive it for her or go through any of the maths, but just the basic stuff like speed makes your length decrese, mass increase and time increase relative to an observer, because of the relativity your time is different to their perspective on it, mass and energy and the non existence of simultaneity. And she had absolutely no problems with it all, in fact she spent the entire afternoon running round the garden trying to get shorter. Now shes ten and started some physics its just part of her world view, she accepts it as reality. Its not just some addition to be added on when she gets to A Levels, when she gets to A levels what will happen is that she'll learn some useful approximations to the real world (Newtons Laws) that she can use to calculate things at speeds far lower than c, while maintaining in her head the 'reality' of the universe. I cant really comment easily about organic chemistry, as its something Ive done quite badly at in the past, i would guess that what your talking about is the symbolic stuff, which I dont really have a problem with, the symbols are representations, with things like C for Carbon and O for oxygen there is no confusion as far as I'm aware (I can't imagine many kids think that a carbon atom is actually shaped like the letter C), but perhaps you are talking about something else and I'm missing the point there, in which case could you explain a little more? But if we are talking about anything more complicated that what I've mentioned I'm not sure you'd find it in a high school syllabus anyway which is really the area I'm talking about. I'm not so fussed about things being so correctly described (at least pictorially) at undergrad level (or even A level) as by that time students have matured enough to understand representations correctly. It really is for young children that this needs to get fixed. But please feel free to debate more, and apologies if this has hijacked the thread a little.

Sure, its all probablilities. Sounds weird I know, but atoms are made from smaller bits, and those bits are only really probably there. In a bit more detail, things like an electron have a probablility function, which simply give depending on where you look for it, the probablility of finding it there. Its a very different sort of world to the one you are familiar, an objects position is spread out over space, imagine you lost your keys, but instead of them being just in one place, they were in losts of places at once, If you looked for your keys in the kitchen you would always find them there, but if you looked for your keys in the bedroom you would find them there about half the time (even though you knew youd still find them in the kitchen if you looked there). Once youve found them in the bedroom though , obviously you cant then go looking for them in the kitchen - its just if you had looked in the kitchen you would have found them there instead. Basically everything is made up from stuff thats smooshed around the place according to probablility. And until you actually look at it it stays smooshed, when you start looking at things you fix them in place. We live in a very strange universe and personally i reckon kids would be very into that. It doesnt have to be explained in details even for young children learning chemistry i think it would help if teachers drew clouds on the blackboard to represent atoms rather than spheres, just those little touches that reinforce the ideas that they may learn about later in life would go a long way towards changing perspectives on science.

Lol, you think *theyre* power tripping???

No probs, I do think its very important that science has a bit of a mini revolution and we throw out a whole bunch of wrong physics and embrace (whats is so far known to be more accurate - I'm not talking about string theory here but the actual stuff thats got a decent amount of evidence behind it) the quantum mechanistic reality of physics. What I'm talking about is not teaching kids in early education that atoms are tiny balls with other tiny balls (electrons) spinning round them. Not teaching kids that light is a wave, but teaching wave particle duality instead. Not teaching kids Newtons Laws of Motion as truth but as an approximation to relativity. It may seem a bit odd, and some may even think that children are not capable of grasping it, but I assure you they can and easily too and more most of them find it a more fascinating and curious universe because of it. It seems difficult to grasp only because we ourselves have been very indoctrinated to believe it, from our own early education. But the most important reason is because we have known this stuff is a better picture for more than a hundred years goddamn it and its about time we stopped feeding our kids a bunch of damn lies :) :)

I'll go similar to the original poster but from the other direction... Mandatory parenting classes for new mothers and fathers. (Oh and gay marriage, in exactly the same sense as hetero marriage too, zero differences incuding the ability to legally call yourself 'married', but thats far less important than the main one about parenting)

An important part in the paragraph on generalization is... >>>The principle that the mass of a system of particles is equal to the sum of their rest masses, even though true in classical physics, is false in special relativity. energy/mass is conserved, mass isnt conserved.

I'm quite aware, I just do this to past the time. If you are that aware, how come your arguments really don't reflect that? I've never once heard you talk about how much your religion has helped you in your life, or about the things youve been inspired to do because of it, its always been about other stuff. I've written very little about my own spirituality so far (in the do you believe in god thread) but in everything I write I try to talk about the inspiration and sense of my wonder at the universe. I've really never heard that from you. Its why these threads do actually upset me, because instead of reassuring each other, athiest and christian, that we are all out there as moral people trying to bring our own perspective on enlightenment to the world, helping people as we go, building and bonding with those around us... ...we sit here and argue with each other. It's not really very enlightened of us, is it?

Just cos it hasnt been stressed enough ill mention this again, there is no such thing as a law of conservation of mass. And the main thing i think you want to know in the simplest terms is that the sugars (which are pretty much the building blocks and made from carbon hydrogen and oxygen atoms) come from carbon dioxide (carbon and oxygen) and water (hydrogen and oxygen). More complex stuff is made with the inclusion of the nutrients they take from the ground which include stuff like nitrogen and phosphorus. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong please, but be aware im trying to massively simplify for the easiest overall picture)

No, professional help from a psychiatrist, any mental health charity will be able to put her in touch with the psychiatric help she needs.

For gods sake, don't come on a game forum, especially not one based around a game aimed at 13-16 year olds with this sort of stuff. GET THEM SOME PROFESSIONAL HELP!!!! There are plenty of charities who specialise in stuff like this, if you are in the UK, try phoning Mind and ask them their advice (If not in the UK there will be plenty of info in either your local paper or telephone book). They are trained professional, we are not.

About 5 years ago 99% of these cases are simply newspapers with slow news days making up rubbish, honestly, not just incorrectly reporting stuff, but just out and out lies, to sell to people who enjoy getting up in arms at stuff. As a result councils get worried and so follow along with the trend believing that there actually are people out there who care, meanwhile other people seeing that they might be able to get away with this sort of behaviour and believing they have a right and a reason to be offended by christmas start complaining and five years down the line we are where we are today and people actually now are complaining and getting up in arms about it. And no the papers can report these 'real' stories with impunity. Learn the lesson, dont believe everything you read in papers (or they'll come true).

I would presume that the answer is that since none of the other religions gods exist they couldnt have healed someone, since they wouldnt have been praying to the Christian god, he wouldnt have healed them, the only person left with an abilities would be Satan, as a method to lure people away from the 'correct' faith. It does make sense. The reason behind Catholics and Jews being allowed is that those are derivations of the same religeon so they are praying to the same god (I'm guessing).

I am not sure how other Christians are, but I would believe in Catholic/Jewish faith healings but not, for example, healing for buddists, muslims and other religions that aren't pretty much a branch of Christian/Catholic/Jewish religion. If something happens for a different religion I will put it down as the work of Satan.Interesting I did wonder how that would be perceived, anyone else?

Almost none of the standard paranormal experience defy science, what science are you talking about? Now the following are just some of many possible explanations, and I've just gone for the absolute simplest dumbest (and probably also easily testably false ones too - but you get the picture) Telepathy, no different to radio communication, except generated by some biological means, could equally be done by induction of the electrical currents in the brain. Telekinesis, action at a distance is very common in physics, think gravity or electromagnetism Faith Healing, some versions of quantum mechanics have consciousness as affecting the observer, if belief is part of consciousness then belief could affect and change reality. Crystals - resonance may exist in the structures of crystals which could theoretically absorb energy on some theoretical psychic wavelengths. Ghosts - If crystals could absorb pyschic energy then rock could possibly take the imprint of a human as repeat it, most hauntings are in buildings. Absolutely Anything, if humans were capable through consciousness of altering reality, as quantum mechanics suggested then altering ones perceptions could alter the universe, in a multiverse where everything possible occurs, all that is required is for a person to attune his mind correctly in order to achieve any result possible, from turning water into wine, walking on water, or even the spice girls having a good record. Now I'm not saying that these explanations are remotely likely to be correct, most of these have however been theories proposed, all are scientifically possible and whilst they have been disproved now, I'm giving examples of scientifically feasable ways in which unusual phenomena could be part of a rational univese. In science its almost impossible to prove something cant happen cos pretty much anything can.

The Randi Prize is no longer available (I believe) he withdrew it earlier this year.

Thanks for those they were quite intersting, although hardly what id call unbiased. And whilst I was aware of 90% of the stuff in there and my considered opinion is that Islam sucks (as opposed to Christianity which is merely completely unbelievable)... ...without someone willing and able to defend the Islamic point of view there is no debate here... ...and it become increasingly likely that this merely turns into Islamobashing. A purely textual reading of the bible can bring up an awful lot of problematic text, and without someone familiar with its use today as part of their actual lifestyle, the context and meaning will not be known to us. So please, lets not go there.

Just out of curiosity and because im aware of the large number of christians on the forums, do those of you who believe in faith healing believe in faith healing for religeons other than your own?

Im a believer in a lot of paranormal things, particularly telepathy and empathy. I'm not very telepathic, but I am very empathic - I feel the emotions of those around me more strongly than my own. One of my favourite perspectives on it is that its a hyper awareness of those around you, much in the same way people pick up body language but in a far more intense way. I'm very Buddhistic in my attitudes, so to me the universe is one, we are connected to everything and everyone at a fundamental level, so hyper awareness can include a connection to people not in ones immediate vicinity.

I would think the main reason we havent been debating Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and other religions is simply we havent got anybody from those religions arguing for them, its not really fair to argue against a position no one is able to defend fro a position of knowledge. Although I have put myself up as a believer who isnt a Christian, and we had a little bit of a debate about the evidence of god from the beauty in Mathematics, but it kinda petered out a little while ago..

well I was an agnostic until the age of 27, when i started having religeous experiences, and whilst its resulted in me being a lot more intersted in being aware that what i believe may be only one of a number of possible explanations, it is something in my life thats not 100% faith, its based on real experiences in my life, sure they dont prove it to anyone else but me, but they do tell me that *something* is going on,and its up to me to discover what. I have few concrete ideas about the actual nature of reality, I'm certainly not a christian or follower of any organised religeon, but i do believe in god.

Just noticed this, and thought, ooh something actually worth debating I would certianly go with the definition of atheism as a believe that there isnt a god and agnostisim being unsure, but really is it that surprising that people might have different understanding of the word? But I think the two definitions ive made are the commonly accepted ones so id suggest at least for the sake of debate you go with those. (It doesnt really matter which ones we use as lng as we're all agree otherwise its just a semantic argument and those are mostly boring) As for the oort cloud, I would agree the jury is still out, most scientists think its a good explanation for where comets might come from, but as we've not observed it yet, its clearly in the unknown camp. This does seem to represent something I've witnessed a lot in religion versus science debates. Religious people tend to look at science as thought it should hold all the answers and ive often seen them argue that any gap in science's knowledge implies that science is wrong, (e.g. formation of life on earth, big bang). This is a common mistake, as i see it. Science never intends to answer every question, the universe is simply too big for that to happen. What it does is try and find evidence to show somethings are happening and what mechanisms can underlie them. Sometimes (such as the laws of motion) we get such good evidence that we can use these observations to predict future events. but sometimes knowledge is overturned because new data comes in which reveals (like the relativistic laws of motion) that there are new facets to be added to our understanding, sometimes new information just adds more detail to an existing theory. Any true scientist would not claim that the oort cloud is a certainty, but its the best explanation we've got that fits the facts. The existence of comets otherwise cant be explained easily in a rational explanation, although an alternative may exist. The problem is that you are leaving aside what you are thinking is your preferred alternative, that of the bible, it is far easier to assume an oort cloud than the majority of stuff thats in the bible at least from a scientific standpoint, because in order to accept the bible we have to assume that science has no sway in the universe, using the sort of methods science does, (looking and trying to understand things) is very contrary to the message which comes across in the bible (which is more about doing what god tells you to, never mind the reasons)

Relative to what? Relative to reference frame (how fast you are moving relative to someone else) It is relative, as to where it is, it permeates everything. Incidentally its also worth saying that one of the things einstien showed was that time itself doesnt exist and neither does space, what exists is space-time, which cannot be separated into separate components and must be considered as a whole (at least if you want to gt the right answers to any questions you ask). At least thats what einsteins work showed.

Wouter828 is right, but not i think because of the reason he states, its easy to prove something exists because all you need is a single example of it to show it exists, but to show something doesnt exist you have to prove that it cant exist for every possible situtation. It would be easy to prove magic exists (assuming that it does), by simply having someone do it. To prove magic doesnt exist you have to prove that for the entire universe it doesnt exist.

You did, but it just seems to come across in what you say, there is quite a lot of misunderstanding going on and im am really unsure of your position because you seem to say one thing and then say a thing which counters it, so im unsure which stand your actually taking, this is just the nature of people of course we are contrary creatures, but thats why these misunderstanding occur. Sure, totally agree with you. Sure thing boss, page 8 post 4 This debate between you and I has only come out of one comment I made which was purely about your comment about the smell, that it would be egotistical to make cigarettes illegal purely on the basis of that. You agreed that if I had a thing which produced the smell, but none of the irritation or health problems of a cigarette, you wouldn't make it illegal, since you wouldn't make cigarettes illegal anyway. That's the only time I've said the words egotistical, to my knowledge, if I've said it anywhere else I apologise I shouldn't have (but I don't think i have). As a separate issue I have also made arguments against not putting people outside 100% of the time but I'm not saying its egotistical of you to disagree with me. For the majority of what we are saying I disagree with you but have no hard feelings, the smell thing which you already agree with me on has just got caught up in the whole thing. As you say, both could split up and not bother or they could easily a agree to a 50-50 split. You could agree not to fuss about it if they lit up in their home and they could agree to not smoke in yours, or half the time when at either yours or theirs they could go outside. My way the smoker and the non smoker get to keep their friendship intact. i should probably mention that in the UK, with the temperatures we have here going outside is not a universally accepted thing, people are generally quite grumpy, if still willing to comply. I would probably be very happy going outside if i living in Australia. because youve missed out the bit where i said it is ONLY making the judgement on the basis of smell alone that i am talking about. Im sorry that was not what i meant, you have been nothing but courteous and an excellent debating partner tonight, however you have consistently missed out on a couple of points, so I was merely advising caution in the hope that those points were picked up. EDIT: I'm tired and heading to bed now, have fun and catch you later. Peace out.