1

New Theories / Re: Particle Movement is a Biocentric Illusion

« on: 17/02/2017 17:59:20 »

I commend this post. It makes for much thought.

2

New Theories / Re: Is the Big Bang real?

« on: 16/12/2016 00:42:32 »

The "Big Bang" theory has been around for quite a while. It's about due for replacement by a revived  "Steady State" theory.

These theories come and go, according to fashion.

3

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is cannabis addictive?

« on: 15/12/2016 23:25:37 »

I think tobacco is more addictive than cannabis.  I've tried cannabis occasionally, over the years, but didn't really like it.  It just made my head confused, and caused memory drop-outs.  Like you're pursuing some line of thought, then suddenly you can't remember what it was you were thinking about.

Tobacco has never produced an effect like that.  Smoking a cigarette just calms and soothes. And admittedly after a while, it does get addictive.

But cannabis isn't addictive.

4

General Science / Re: What is the science behind joy and happiness?

« on: 06/11/2016 18:09:05 »

Hello dear science community,

I am very interested in the topic and i would like to learn more about it. Especially from the scientific point of view. From the philosophy side there is a lot to find. but I want to expand my knowledge into the field of neuronal and endocrine science on joy.

Who can and is willing to support me in my research for my Diploma?

with respect and i am looking forward to hear from you

Urs

Dear Urs, I wish you all the best.  You mention your "Diploma". This is clearly a thing that would give you great happiness.

And happiness is what we all seek.

Therefore, I think you should try to get your "Diploma" by whatever method is necessary.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does space require space before it can expand?

« on: 24/10/2016 22:49:16 »

Perhaps the whole trouble is linguistic, and simply results from our having the word "Space" in our vocabulary.

"Space" is an impressive and nice-looking word, and quite smooth and easy to say.  That encourages us to believe that "Space" is a real, independent, slightly esoteric but physical thing, which can "expand" or "contract".  So we  talk about the "Expansion of Space", without feeling troubled.

However in most cases, can't the word "Space" be replaced by the word "gap".  This is a commonplace word which just means the separation between things. 

I mean, if instead of saying: "There's Space between the galaxies", we said: "There's a gap between the galaxies", would that make us think that there's an actual thing "Gap", a physical thing, an entity, which can expand by itself?

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: When would relativity have been discovered without Einstein?

« on: 19/10/2016 20:53:16 »

The concept of "relativity" goes back at least as far as Galileo, in the 17th century.  He compared the relative movements of a observer on a ship, to an observer on land, and noted that there would be no difference in their respective observations. This is a kind of intuitive thought that must have struck everyone throughout history.

Einstein's contribution, was to put the intuitive thought into precise mathematical equations. By publishing his "Special Theory of Relativity", and then the "General Theory" in 1915.  But if he hadn't done it, someone else would have, without doubt.  The whole thing was "in the air" at that time.

So, in answer to your first question, I think "Relativity" would, even without Einstein, have emerged no later than 1920, at tops.

About your second question, do we need a need a new genius, this is very interesting. Has the time for individual geniuses passed?
 
I mean, was there an individual who "discovered" the Higg's Boson?  (if there really is such a thing, which I doubt).  Nowadays, isn't actual scientific discovery more about teamwork, with the strongest personality in the team managing to get the Nobel Prize.  Or is that too cynical?

7

The Environment / Re: Would limiting population be the best solution for climate change and violence?

« on: 19/10/2016 20:04:39 »

We humans shouldn't be too gloomy about the future. We are the most amazing species ever evolved in Earth's history, far superior to anything that's gone before.

We have developed "mind", and "language" and "culture" and "civilisation" and above all, "science".  These achievements should not be lightly dismissed.  We may be the only beings in the Galaxy, or the whole Universe, to have them.

So, as for "limiting population", ie of human beings, I would say that in general, that's not a good thing.  What we need is more human beings, to spread out into the Universe. With this proviso - that the humans should be of excellent quality. That's to say, they must all be "scientists", either amateur or professional, like on this forum.

If the posters on this forum (even the mods) were running the Earth, wouldn't they make a better job of it, than our present politicians?