The end of oil

Scroll to see replies

FreedomtoFascism

Why has it failed? Simply because science has tried to isolate it from humanity, which can't be done, because we are trying to conquer it.

Despite all the advancements, it should be apparent that we are actually moving backwards. We are tending towards chaos

First of all, science has tried to isolate properties of the world inorder for it to be studied, it is easier to understand bits before attempting anything more complex. Classically, we thought this isolation could be done indefinitely. Now we know we can't completely isolate the world from humanity. It is science, quantum mechanics which tells us that we can't study the world as if it were a box that we can just look into. Every measurement we make will disturb the system we are interested in.

The tend towards chaos? People do say the entropy of the universe increases. But maybe chaos is another matter. Does the past contain more order, all those history books, it is the future that is not in the libraries.

Incidently, the Royal Society motto that was mention by ChemistBoy, 'Nullius in verba' can also mean 'nothing in words'. That is to say, in science we look towards experiments to verify theories, we look for ourselves at nature. That is a departure from methods a few centuries ago, where philosophy was mixed up with science.

Reply 81

FreedomtoFascism

Agent Smith

Not to understand everything in one go. Reaching the sky from a standing start on the ground is the aim of religion. What science does is to chip, chip, chip away at ignorance. To equate the fact that it has not finished doing so (if indeed, it's even possible to discover everything) with a total failure is to make a colossal logical error.

Haha, you got to be kidding, chip away at ignorance? If it doesn't fit the norm of science its usually cast aside, even if the theory is valid.

When you look at the big theories, such as gravity or black holes, you will see that they are theories, nothing more. before some smartass says, "yeh, but we know gravity exists since things fall to the floor", take a second to think about 'time'. We see it in action (cycles, sun setting etc), yet, we do not know what it is, since we can't percieve it directly.

Science is merely the establishments edited version of the true nature of reality.

Reply 82

City bound

FreedomtoFascism

Actually time is a pretty well researched area of physics. Hence the whole, velocity-gravity-time link. Time travels at different speeds in different circumstances dependant upon the relative situations of observers. A clock on a spaceship traveling at a faster speed around the Earth relative to a stationary clock on the surface will move slower. This has been shown to be true using the space shuttle. Then there's the "one twin at the top of a mountain ages faster than one at the bottom" malarkey. Basically when there's less gravitational potential time travels slower. It's all tied to the speed of light. That's obviously a rather simplistic summary of a very large area of physics. This time you should look at "Time Dilation". Goggle it or wiki it.

Again, you really need to do some kind of further study of Physics before you start harping on about the establishment.

Reply 83

Agent Smith

FreedomtoFascism

Haha, you got to be kidding, chip away at ignorance? If it doesn't fit the norm of science its usually cast aside, even if the theory is valid.
[...]
Science is merely the establishments edited version of the true nature of reality.

Very well, have it your own way. If you're going to automatically reject all opposition as the witterings of brainwashed Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons duckspeaking (sorry to mix metaphors) the views of the Establishment, then I don't see any way forward.

Reply 84

FreedomtoFascism

Cold fusion in the centre of the sun?

http://www.alternativescience.com/is_the_sun_hot.htm

Whats your response to that?..

Reply 85

Agent Smith

I think the URL speaks for itself. The theory, while presumably possible, is on the fringes of science.

But what's your point? If you're making a point about cold fusion, consider that what you can do in the heart of a star and what you can do in a power station are two different things. After all, stars are the only places we know of where hot fusion works, at least sustainably.

Reply 86

FreedomtoFascism

"The fringes of Science"...this is what i was talking about, when something doesn't conform to the mainstream view its shunned aside. And the URL...so what? Just because its not from a mainstream site doesn't mean its any less credible.

Reply 87

ChemistBoy

FreedomtoFascism

No, what makes it less credible is evidence. The two papers "published" appear to be in a non-peer reviewed magazine (I have sent an email asking about their peer-review process so I might be proved wrong) so that throws question onto their contents immediately, especially since the author's work was actually discredited by an editorial piece in the same magazine with calls for actual data to be published (indicating that no data, ie evidence, was produced in the last two "papers").

Please remember that the entirity of modern physics was on the fringes of science less than 100 years ago, trying to suggest that science is unwilling to embrace new non-conformist ideas and theories is nonsense based on the radical change that has occured over that period. Also, there are a great many contentious debates across the scientific community on any number of issues both large and small, this conformist consensus you have dreamed up could be nothing further from the truth. However, science suffers fools lightly and a scientific case must convince others before it is widely accepted, it appears, sadly, that the authors of the work you refer to are nothing more than snake oil salesmen peddling lies to people who really want them to be true.

Reply 88

Agent Smith

FreedomtoFascism

Right, so my saying I presume it to be possible counts as "shunning it aside", does it? Are you just seeing what you want to see in my posts or something?