The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
New Theories / Re: New theory of social evolution and social structure
« Last post by aspagnito on Today at 09:40:13 »
Quote from: The Spoon on Today at 07:23:23
Quote from: aspagnito on Yesterday at 15:21:04
ʃ Mathematics = Physics
ʃ Physics = Chemistry
ʃ Chemistry = Biology
ʃ Biology = History
ʃ History = Archeology
ʃ Archeology = Anthropology
ʃ Anthropology = Sociology
ʃ Sociology = Psychology
ʃ Psychology = Philosophy
ʃ Philosophy = Religion
Your point is?
It's fantasy that created humans. It's social interactions that made us discover the undiscovered. Christ had blood type of B-, and after Christ the blood type B (individualist type blood) was popular in Europe. That made the science grow. Also alchemy (originated from naive thinking about christianity - Christ prove on the Cross that one can have input on things one shouldn't have input on). Also Christ prove that against all other religions physical is profanum and spiritual is sacrum - so everyone might do disguisting things in science saying, the dignity factor was okay. And in XI-XIII century the roman Catholic Church stated the thing we now call system. And that was the basis for scientiffical method. Those things proove that We're getting somewhere - evolution is not blind, and there is a reason why we have both legs, armse, belly, back, neck and head. Humanoid is the highest form in the Universe.

p.s. I'm not saying Christ had kids. I'm saying it was a sign.
2
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Will water at low pressure still freeze at zero degrees?
« Last post by alancalverd on Today at 09:24:11 »
Fun news item this morning. Apparently University College London have made (or discovered)  a disordered  state of ice by milling the regular stuff into a glassy solid with a density of 1.0.

3
General Science / Re: Why Does Making A Sandwich Enable Ewe To Cut Anything?
« Last post by alancalverd on Today at 09:18:31 »
Quote from: neilep on 01/02/2023 19:15:31
Non doctored  true-to-scale (1-1) bona-fide image of my sandwich just moments ago.
Intriguing.

A publisher's photographer of my acquaintance reckoned to spend half a day to photograph a sandwich lunch to the satisfaction of the editors, and by the time  they had added glosses, moisturisers, citric acid or sodium bicarbonate in all the right places, it was inedible.

They should have employed a sheep.
4
New Theories / Re: New theory of social evolution and social structure
« Last post by Bored chemist on Today at 08:37:13 »
Quote from: Origin on 18/01/2023 00:05:55
Quote from: cpu68 on 17/01/2023 18:59:34
However, I invite you to read the whole thing
If the synopsis peaks my curiosity I will, otherwise I don't think so.
If I point out that the word is "piques" then this thread will serve some tiny purpose.
5
New Theories / Re: Structure of electron, quark and gluon, preon, preons
« Last post by cpu68 on Today at 07:56:44 »
Quote from: paul cotter on Yesterday at 20:22:31
Nonsense

This discovery is even greater than the Bohr model
6
New Theories / Re: Structure of electron, quark and gluon, preon, preons
« Last post by cpu68 on Today at 07:52:58 »
the paragraph supplementing the text from the first post, is from 2019:

A more careful analysis of the galactical model leads to the conclusion that there are more types of particles of the right type. Types of stars, by supergiants, giants, dwarfs, all the way to the black star (black hole, see paragraph 11) would correspond to the types of these particles. Cosmical model analysis leads to similar conclusions, where the types of particles would correspond to the appropriate types of galaxies. At the end, the analysis of the supercosmical model leads to similar conclusions.
In addition, it can be assumed that there are types of photon-like particles and corresponding waves with significantly higher speeds than the speed of light. So there are non-electromagnetic waves far above the speed of light.
7
New Theories / Re: New theory of social evolution and social structure
« Last post by The Spoon on Today at 07:23:23 »
Quote from: aspagnito on Yesterday at 15:21:04
ʃ Mathematics = Physics
ʃ Physics = Chemistry
ʃ Chemistry = Biology
ʃ Biology = History
ʃ History = Archeology
ʃ Archeology = Anthropology
ʃ Anthropology = Sociology
ʃ Sociology = Psychology
ʃ Psychology = Philosophy
ʃ Philosophy = Religion
Your point is?
8
New Theories / Re: Biblical Flood
« Last post by Kryptid on Yesterday at 22:49:32 »
Quote from: Yaniv on Yesterday at 18:44:14
My God Yahweh promised me a temple.

What does that have to do with whether or not your model is correct?
9
New Theories / Re: Biblical Flood
« Last post by Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:43:25 »
Quote from: The Spoon on Yesterday at 20:11:20
And what does belief in a fictional sky fairy have to do with science?
A strong negative correlation.
10
New Theories / Re: New theory of social evolution and social structure
« Last post by paul cotter on Yesterday at 20:42:13 »
Sigh, yawn.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 39 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.