Physics: Post your doubts here!

[teachyourself]

I was reading the interesting conversation and this part made me wonder... Why do you think in dichotomies... Like no scientists, no medicine.. but then no funding, no scientific research/scientists as well.. so ppl paying for good are doing good in their capacity and we are thankful for them just as we are to those researching on medication for the right reasons... After all we do live in a world of interdependence...

strictly speaking dichotomies would be in set theory but i get your point
but if you do not want scientists and medicine, the death toll would be very high and the birth rate would be very low, just look at any plague in and before the medieval times versus any viral infection in today's time for example ebola was contained with relatively fewer deaths
simply read the history of medical science and diseases for questions like this Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey

Like no scientists, no medicine.. but then no funding, no scientific research/scientists as well..

.. so ppl paying for good are doing good in their capacity and we are thankful for them just as we are to those researching on medication for the right reasons... After all we do live in a world of interdependence...

doing good in one's own capacity would be of limited benefit due to limited level of expertise of each individual and the increasing complexity of scientific questions that are being answered
people doing research need funding at any level, for this you should study the history of economics to understand how resources have been allocated historically , medical research is very expensive for individuals (even the richest) so that is why corporate organizations are there, to fund even the richest and medical research or any other is a continuing process, so some form of organized resource allocation is needed .... don't schools discuss these issues anymore?? we used to discuss this since the 5th or 6th grade

also medicinal research cannot stop at a certain level because nature keeps on changing, also the improvement of the human body is only limited by the limitation of research, there is no end point

additionally scientists keep on trying to promote science to educate the public and also so that more scientists can be raised, it is the politics that limits the funding for science, that can only change if the lay-person appreciates the sciences and raises children to become scientists, more scientists are also needed because AI will ultimately replace mundane jobs
go through Big Think there is some discussion regarding this
in this post "For Business Students" there is is a video by Ray Dalio that explains the economic machine

a good book for this is
https://www.amazon.com/If-Mayors-Ruled-World-Dysfunctional/dp/030016467X

 

[teachyourself]

still, technology could be witchcraft, some ancient tools found by modern people etc etc etc,
peace.

read message #16971 it addresses witchcraft etc

for the ancient technology/tools there is:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Däniken
all their ideas are rejected by peer-review

if I would use your logic, then existence of technology doesn't prove that science is real
peace.

actually technology and experiments that work do prove science is real, this has been addressed in message #16971

similarly you say existence of such sophisticated and accurate system does not prove existence of creator
peace.

specify these "sophisticated" and "accurate system" without examples i cannot know what you are talking about

I am not denying the fact of science,I am showing you how stupid this sounds if it is compared to real life,

please specify "how stupid this sounds" ... what exactly are you referring to?

 

[studyingrobot457]

read message #16971 it addresses witchcraft etc

for the ancient technology/tools there is:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Däniken
all their ideas are rejected by peer-review



actually technology and experiments that work do prove science is real, this has been addressed in message #16971




specify these "sophisticated" and "accurate system" without examples i cannot know what you are talking about



please specify "how stupid this sounds" ... what exactly are you referring to?

I think this address nothing, if I don't trust scientist however you try to convince me ,I will say your evidence is incomplete, you are doing the same thing with Muslims anyhow, so it is a matter of choosing whom you want to believe, although both sides can be equally wrong, and don't give me links to some peer-views, I don't trust them you see (using your method of proof) no matter what you bring, you can not have evidence for me for science to be true, could be all a lie

 

[studyingrobot457]

well for that you would need to prove that it is a fabrication
this idea and similar ideas have been discussed for example in the book The Demon Haunted World - Carl Sagan
if it was all fabrication then none of the scientific progress every thing you use has resulted from scientific progress would have been there
just pick up a basic general science book and you will see the explanation
furthermore to test if it is all fabrication you can also develop products on your own, that is why schools have science exhibitions to SHOW students how science is done practically
a lot of detail for this can be found Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey (2014) this traces the basis of inventions
https://www.iau.org/public/themes/astronomy_in_everyday_life/

there are multiple other sources you can check for yourself, if you are still not satisfied well, then i guess it is your problem

most schools show stuff that was known hundreds of years ago, strictly speaking in the name of everyday phenomena or alchemy, so practically even if you show me show a camera work, still not convincing, read about John Titor and his time machine

 

[studyingrobot457]

see no matter what you try, there is no clear cut evidence for science without involving personal claims and opinions, same goes for religion and next time you reply be short and meaningful

 

[teachyourself]

Great! So basically before the invention of MRIs n CAT scans (let's say a 1000 years ago) people didn't have brains coz they couldn't yet see/prove them?

actually they did, via dead bodies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_neuroscience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biology

No.. actually with your limited mind you think they are mistakes.. you tell everyone to have an open mind n reaserch but you never use your head or your heart to consider what they post.. to consider that you can be wrong....
The way you even debate with someone on quran is so superficial.. you start posting links instead of succinct coherent argument...

well considering i am skeptical enough to doubt any claims of "perfection" shows that i am open minded

those who are never even willing to doubt the claim of "perfection" of their set of beliefs and use it as a starting point of entry to a religion or an organization, are the ones with a closed mind

that is why science/scepticism is the better way forward, it keeps on improving and rejecting any ideas that are proven wrong

a simple example is the "the big crunch" it has been rejected in 1998 after it was found that the universe has accelerated its expansion, this is the point dark matter and dark energy were discovered, now new evidence is needed to understand dark matter dark energy and the same goes for any research in any area of science

And about your scientific method..the Quran never claims to be a book of science.. it is a communication for people and guidance from the creator... That's why you don't find your scientific method there.

quran claims to explain the natural phenomenon as do many other religions that came before it, this is because before science there were only "beliefs" that people had to explain natural phenomenon and those explanations in the light of science have turned out to be wrong, read The Demon Haunted World - Carl Sagan and the criticism of Bucaili's book The Bible Quran and Science
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-Arabic-Science-by-Jim-al-Khalili-review.html
there are many other articles and websites you can use as well, another approach you can try is use the tafaseer and compare them to the scientific explanations of natural phenomenon

then people of religions use their texts and connect it to science to prove the "truth" of their religion and this is where it fails detailed scrutiny which is why Buccali's book has been rejected

Rather it is organized like no other book.. in a profound way to serve it's purpose....

doesn't mean much, all books are arranged in a specific manner, some people like it some people don't, some like me are indifferent until the claim of "science in the quran is made"

There is an ancient saying; the speech of a king is King of speeches... And that's what Quran holds if one is ready to dive into it with a sincere heart looking for guidance... Even the science that you find in it is not too inform you about science but to discuss more important things with you.. like why are we here and where are we headed and how does it all makes sense...

okay but again it doesn't make much of a difference, people are entirely capable of finding their own purpose direction in life, the meaning life or its direction does not need to be handed over by someone, independent rational thought should be used to come to one's own conclusion, those who want to follow one book sure go ahead no one is stepping in anyone's way

 

[teachyourself]

I think this address nothing, if I don't trust scientist however you try to convince me ,I will say your evidence is incomplete, you are doing the same thing with Muslims anyhow, so it is a matter of choosing whom you want to believe, although both sides can be equally wrong, and don't give me links to some peer-views, I don't trust them you see (using your method of proof) no matter what you bring, you can not have evidence for me for science to be true, could be all a lie

most schools show stuff that was known hundreds of years ago, strictly speaking in the name of everyday phenomena or alchemy, so practically even if you show me show a camera work, still not convincing, read about John Titor and his time machine

see no matter what you try, there is no clear cut evidence for science without involving personal claims and opinions, same goes for religion and next time you reply be short and meaningful

this is entirely your problem

 

[studyingrobot457]

actually they did, via dead bodies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_neuroscience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biology




well considering i am skeptical enough to doubt any claims of "perfection" shows that i am open minded

those who are never even willing to doubt the claim of "perfection" of their set of beliefs and use it as a starting point of entry to a religion or an organization, are the ones with a closed mind

that is why science/scepticism is the better way forward, it keeps on improving and rejecting any ideas that are proven wrong

a simple example is the "the big crunch" it has been rejected in 1998 after it was found that the universe has accelerated its expansion, this is the point dark matter and dark energy were discovered, now new evidence is needed to understand dark matter dark energy and the same goes for any research in any area of science



quran claims to explain the natural phenomenon as do many other religions that came before it, this is because before science there were only "beliefs" that people had to explain natural phenomenon and those explanations in the light of science have turned out to be wrong, read The Demon Haunted World - Carl Sagan and the criticism of Bucaili's book The Bible Quran and Science
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-Arabic-Science-by-Jim-al-Khalili-review.html
there are many other articles and websites you can use as well, another approach you can try is use the tafaseer and compare them to the scientific explanations of natural phenomenon

then people of religions use their texts and connect it to science to prove the "truth" of their religion and this is where it fails detailed scrutiny which is why Buccali's book has been rejected



doesn't mean much, all books are arranged in a specific manner, some people like it some people don't, some like me are indifferent until the claim of "science in the quran is made"


okay but again it doesn't make much of a difference, people are entirely capable of finding their own purpose direction in life, the meaning life or its direction does not need to be handed over by someone, independent rational thought should be used to come to one's own conclusion, those who want to follow one book sure go ahead no one is stepping in anyone's way

They didn't dissect everyone you know, not an evidence

 

[studyingrobot457]

this is entirely your problem

see you are now contradicting your self (instead of teaching yourself lol) you said that in order to believe in any thing there has to be an evidence, and when we give you an evidence, you just say it is not a clear one, and then when I carried on to show you this is the exact same situation you said it your problem, thus I can summarise in a simple sentence

'YOU BELIVE BECAUSE OF LOGIC, BUT LOGIC DOESNT MEAN YOU DO BELIEVE'

I am tired of arguing with an ignorant, so I will only say 'peace'

 

[Takishima]

Is there anyone who can help for CIE physics paper 5 about designing experiments and such I really would like to know
If there's a set of experiments which we're supposed to know or smthin?! Cuz I'm self studying and I'm in a bind
My exams are jus weeks away ....

 

[teachyourself]

They didn't dissect everyone you know, not an evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_brain#Human_brain_size_in_the_fossil_record
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy
a simple skull cracked open via injury is easy evidence, so dissection is not necessary, apart from that mummy dissections and dissections by scientists before the MRI, CAT, PET scan, etc were carried out

apart from that the DNA of homo sapiens has been the same, so ancient humans would have brains apart from that there are fossilized brains

 

[teachyourself]

see you are now contradicting your self (instead of teaching yourself lol) you said that in order to believe in any thing there has to be an evidence, and when we give you an evidence, you just

because vague verses and their loose interpretations are not evidence, i guess you can try to use it as evidence for a scientific research paper and see how it goes

then when I carried on to show you this is the exact same situation you said it your problem, thus I can summarise in a simple sentence

you simply rejected all of science by saying that even if the technology works on the basis of scientific findings you will still not accept it, my role is not to change your mind, it is to provide you with the information available you can then either accept or reject it

 

[studyingrobot457]

because vague verses and their loose interpretations are not evidence, i guess you can try to use it as evidence for a scientific research paper and see how it goes



you simply rejected all of science by saying that even if the technology works on the basis of scientific findings you will still not accept it, my role is not to change your mind, it is to provide you with the information available you can then either accept or reject it

After doing objective research on both sides, I came to conclude that religion is not a scientific matter, there are proofs, but not evidence, if God was evident, what would be the point of testing us at all?, anyhow, I think you are an ex-Muslim , if so, at least keep the testimony of faith with ya, you know, if you have it you are not losing, but if you don't have it , and god did exist, oh uh, so stop being a closet atheist and just be a weak Muslim, at least this keeps your virtue in your country

 

[studyingrobot457]

because vague verses and their loose interpretations are not evidence, i guess you can try to use it as evidence for a scientific research paper and see how it goes



you simply rejected all of science by saying that even if the technology works on the basis of scientific findings you will still not accept it, my role is not to change your mind, it is to provide you with the information available you can then either accept or reject it

and by the way, there is nothing in the whole observable universe that is 100% certain, in other words, there is no clear-cut evidence for anything, what is the evidence that you do exist, all this technologies and techniques are indirect measurements, even eyes, sounds etc are indirect, and can be affected by other factors

read this at least https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology, so if itis possible to fool the brain, other factors can be fooled

 

[Haya24]

What happens to p.d across a bulb with broken filanent in series and in parallel?

 

[Haya24]

X shows 240 and Y shows 0. I want to ask that :
1. Why doesnt X show 40V as 240÷6=40
2. What would have been the reading of voltmeter if it was in parallel to the bulb before X
3. If there were two bulbs before X, would the answer had been the same?

 

[teachyourself]

After doing objective research on both sides, I came to conclude that religion is not a scientific matter, there are proofs, but not evidence, if God was evident, what would be the point of testing us at all?, anyhow, I think you are an ex-Muslim , if so, at least keep the testimony of faith with ya, you know, if you have it you are not losing, but if you don't have it , and god did exist, oh uh, so stop being a closet atheist and just be a weak Muslim, at least this keeps your virtue in your country

there are no proofs, just vague verses that describe natural phenomenon and then there are people who loosely interpret those verses to claim the "science" of their particular religious text
proof:
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

with the imperfect/ever changing condition of nature, there would be enough tests

even if a god was there that entity could still create tests, more importantly when it is asked why would all knowing, self sufficient being create anything in the first place if that being has no need for anything much less test the creations, then the answer becomes we cannot know god's will, that i guess is a religious person's problem

so as for the "testimony" of faith i do not really care much for it, it is only when people started claiming the "science" of the quran that i thought it would be a good idea to show them information that shows why for all practical purposes that cannot be the case what they do after that is their decision

as for me being an agnostic or atheist or anything else, i do not even being it up (only when people confront me on the issue at a personal level do i bring it up) because for me it simply does not matter, for me all that matters is that a person does not harm others intentionally, expressing opinions does not equate to harm which is why i posted a few threads that questioned a few related issues from a social and legislative point of view

as for virtue/morality, religion is not really needed for that to give people the freedom to do whatever they what to do without infringing upon the freedom of others is the basis of morality along with treating others as they would want to be treated, religion specially when applied as a set of laws goes against that, we have our intellect to figure out any legislative, ethical and moral issues without being dogmatic about it which is what religion does, even atheistic dogma leads to problems and ends up being a state religion

 

[teachyourself]

and by the way, there is nothing in the whole observable universe that is 100% certain, in other words, there is no clear-cut evidence for anything, what is the evidence that you do exist, all this technologies and techniques are indirect measurements, even eyes, sounds etc are indirect, and can be affected by other factors

read this at least https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology, so if itis possible to fool the brain, other factors can be fooled

of course nothing is absolutely certain, that is why science is the best way forward since it deals with uncertainty in an objective manner based upon evidence and it questions everything specially previous findings thus leading to progress, whereas religious or irreligious dogma leads to a close mindedness since they create limits to questioning

as for the axioms of existence you can look into this
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_ExistenceExists.html

 

[Shuddho Ukil]

HELP!
June 2004 Paper 4 Question 3
I'm stuck in doing 3 (b).
The mark scheme says both stars have the same centripetal force, but how do I know that?

 

[Haya24]

HELPPP.
The pressure at sea level is 100000Pa. The density of sea water is 1030kg/m3. What is the approximate pressure 80m below the surface of sea? Answer is 900000Pa. How