LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 225 29.92%
Deist 23 3.06%
Theist 29 3.86%
Agnostic 148 19.68%
Atheist 327 43.48%
Voters: 752. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-13-2020, 12:59 PM   #9496
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,776

Rep: Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Don't edit text and then post it as my quote please. You mislead people. I welcome constructive criticism. That's why I'm posting this stuff. So your edited quote is false.
I'm confidant that "There... fixed that for you" right after YOUR ad hominem commentwas immediately understood by anyone on LQN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
This quantum stuff is not my theory. You're blasting me as if it was essential to my position. It isn't. I'm not particularly a follower of it, in fact. You're just swinging blindly at everything I say, and you lack specifics in your criticism. You can say what you like about that particular idea, just don't treat it like it's my idea.
Of course it is not your theory but it is your interpretation. That you consider attacking your interpretations and ideas as a personal attack speaks volumes. Your identity, ego, is tightly ingrained with your ideas. Combining this with odd contradiction between blasting one field for not having ALL the answers in a rigid know-it-all format while insisting that a 2000 year old text written by superstitious folk with zero repeatable evidence demonstrates why, IMHO, Organized Religion is a bane (and a ban) on critical thinking.... at the very least in some people, including you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
It's supposedto be simplified. Simplification inevitably loses detail. And I must dismiss your criticism because you are not specific. How would you correct that, without resorting into gobbledygook, or leaving the relatively uninitiated with the feeling they have to do a year's science to find out what you meant?
I think I am most often specific AND provide evidence. I could be mistaken but I have no problem letting readers decide for themselves who works harder for accuracy. How long one chooses to research Science vs/ the Chapter and Verse of Bible study (which I see as "virtue signalling") is a measure of one's commitment to as well as the boundaries of what we consider relevant and important. I concede that though I have read the Bible, I have not studied it nor memorized many passages while I can quote numerous equations and Laws such as Ohm's Law and it's derivatives, Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism, etc etc etc from memory AND actually use them in practice both personally and professionally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Now I won't return your "compliment" by calling you ignorant, by saying you don't understand or implying a failing on your part. I don't want to come across like a grouchy old man who has had his corns trod upon, as you do. Instead I simply provide an accurate account.
I think the record here shows who began the "compliments" and FTR "ignorant" is neither a compliment nor a kudo. There is no "crime" in being ignorant of something since we ALL are! The only "crime" is staying ignorant after overwhelming evidence, such as exists for Big Bang and Evolution. Quantum Mechanics is a different animal since relative to how much we can prove and how hard and non-intuitive it is to prove, we are in a period of transition analogous to the period of many, many years when Oxidation slowly made progress over Phlogiston or Realativity over The Aether.


Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
If you think I'm in error, correct the facts with less ad hominem. That will allow us to keep debate respectful. It wasn't your (lack of) interest I sought in any case.
I will grant that we are both passionate about our positions and this can be a recipe to devolve into ad hominem and we both should work very hard to avoid such outbursts. I further grant that your sense of self is so interwoven with closed book conclusions (dogma) and not in scientific training that exalts falsification that this is more difficult for you so I truly don't hold it against you personally. My ego has zero need to "take you personally down" so I have zero problem saying "If you will, I will" and I will resist as much as I can even if you don't.

May the road rise to meet your feet.
 
Old 09-13-2020, 09:51 PM   #9497
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth&Mars (I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that work on freest-HW; has been KDE, CLI, Novena-SBC but open.. http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 4,888
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567
Wrong thread lol
 
Old 09-14-2020, 12:56 AM   #9498
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,776

Rep: Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425
BTW for anyone who visits here who thinks that Science and Spirituality, even most religions, are somehow at War with each other, and especially for those who assume scientists are all atheists and routinely censure Believers please do take even a few minutes to check out this well done, even handed and very enlightening symposium hosted by Brian Greene....


>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0_-7FmrDq8 <<<
 
Old 09-14-2020, 05:41 AM   #9499
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 7,499
Blog Entries: 19

Rep: Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410
When I was studying for my chemistry degree, we had to learn the outlines of quantum mechanics because it relates to chemical bonding. We were told that no one ever knows exactly where an electron is, and that electron orbitals are simply areas of space where an electron might be. That's easy enough to understand when the orbital is spherical, but there are orbitals that consist of two or four separate lobes arranged around the nucleus. No explanation was ever given of how the electron can move from one lobe to another when it is forbidden to traverse the space in between.

I wondered if I was the only person who took this with a spoonful of salt, so I did a round robin survey. After all, I was a scientist and this was an experiment. There were about 21 of us I think, and none of us actually believed that an electron could behave in this way. Yet we obediently regurgitated it in exams because that was what you had to do to get a degree.

Since then, I have always smiled discreetly when told that scientists live by reason while religious people live by orthodoxy and blind faith.
 
Old 09-14-2020, 06:33 AM   #9500
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth&Mars (I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that work on freest-HW; has been KDE, CLI, Novena-SBC but open.. http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 4,888
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567
Arrow

Everybody's different (opinions and/or religions, again the same thing) but the world is the same tho slowlychanging! Go figure?

Smart people don't necessarily have smart children, smarter people don't have children. People with more opinions, and again same as opinions-religion, have even more children...

Last edited by jamison20000e; 09-14-2020 at 03:37 PM.
 
Old 09-14-2020, 10:09 AM   #9501
eight.bit.al
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2015
Location: Prison
Distribution: a new distro every day
Posts: 124

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
When I was studying for my chemistry degree,
I'd like to ask when this was. Could it be knowledge of the subject have advanced since then?

Quote:
we had to learn the outlines of quantum mechanics because it relates to chemical bonding. We were told that no one ever knows exactly where an electron is, and that electron orbitals are simply areas of space where an electron might be. That's easy enough to understand when the orbital is spherical, but there are orbitals that consist of two or four separate lobes arranged around the nucleus.
Use of the term lobes is problematic. Shells¹ (principle energy level) is a better term, and they number up to four.

In the quantum mechanical version of the Bohr atomic model, each of the allowed electron orbits is assigned a quantum number n that runs from 1 (for the orbit closest to the nucleus) to infinity (for orbits very far from the nucleus). All of the orbitals that have the same value of n make up a shell. Inside each shell there may be subshells corresponding to different rates of rotation and orientation of orbitals and the spin directions of the electrons. In general, the farther away from the nucleus a shell is, the more subshells it will have.²

Quote:
...when the orbital is spherical, but there are orbitals that consist of...
(emphasis by me). All the orbits are spherical; did you mean singular? Because the statement then goes on to conclude (correctly) there is more than one orbit.

Quote:
No explanation was ever given of how the electron can move from one lobe to another when it is forbidden to traverse the space in between.
This statement is the root of the point your about to make, and needs careful parsing.

Quote:
No explanation was ever given
Needs further refining. Nothing was offered? Or no one asked for an explanation? Or there was no explanation given when asked for. If the later, could it be the explanation was beyond the scope of the lesson at hand?

Quote:
how the electron can move from one lobe to another when it is forbidden to traverse the space in between
Forbidden to traverse needs further clarification.

verb: traverse; 3rd person present:
1.
travel across or through.
"he traversed the forest"

Do you mean occupy the space in between by going through?

Quantum Leaps ³, ⁴

Quote:
Since then, I have always smiled discreetly when told that scientists live by reason while religious people live by orthodoxy and blind faith.
Now we're down to the basic difference between Scientific Faith and Religious Faith.
Religious Faith needs a conclusion. It must be because of god.
Scientific Faith needs no conclusion, explanations will only stand as truth until someone comes up with a better explanation or description.

8bit

¹https://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemlab/chm.../orbitals.html
²https://www.britannica.com/science/a...-energy-levels
³https://www.quantamagazine.org/quant...time-20190605/
https://www.newscientist.com/article...-control-them/

Last edited by eight.bit.al; 09-14-2020 at 10:20 AM.
 
Old 09-14-2020, 10:30 AM   #9502
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 7,499
Blog Entries: 19

Rep: Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410Reputation: 4410
Quote:
Originally Posted by eight.bit.al View Post
I'd like to ask when this was. Could it be knowledge of the subject have advanced since then?
You're not supposed to ask a lady her age! But I'm talking about the early sixties.
Quote:
Use of the term lobes is problematic. Shells¹ (principle energy level) is a better term, and they number up to four.
No, I'm not talking about shells. They are something different. I'm talking about the shapes of the orbitals. The first shell contains only one orbital and it is spherical (an s-orbital). The second shell contains an s-orbital and three p-orbitals, each of which has two separate lobes on either side of the nucleus. They point along the X, Y and Z axes. Higher shells also contain d-orbitals with four lobes pointing to the corners of a square.
Quote:
All the orbits are spherical
Sorry but that's not true. Bohr's orbits were spherical, but these variously-shaped orbitals have replaced them in later versions of quantum theory. They do not represent paths like the old orbits but simply areas where an electron may be found.
Quote:
Needs further refining. Nothing was offered? Or no one asked for an explanation? Or there was no explanation given when asked for. If the later, could it be the explanation was beyond the scope of the lesson at hand?
istr that someone did ask and was told that the question has no meaning!
Quote:
Forbidden to traverse needs further clarification.
I think it's clear enough. In a p-orbital or d-orbital the inner ends of the lobes approach the nucleus but don't reach it. Therefore they do not touch each other. There is an area inbetween where the electron cannot be. So how does it get across to the opposite lobe of the orbital?

Last edited by hazel; 09-14-2020 at 10:32 AM.
 
Old 09-14-2020, 10:53 AM   #9503
DavidMcCann
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: PCLinuxOS, Debian
Posts: 6,131

Rep: Reputation: 2302Reputation: 2302Reputation: 2302Reputation: 2302Reputation: 2302Reputation: 2302Reputation: 2302Reputation: 2302Reputation: 2302Reputation: 2302Reputation: 2302
That takes me back. I remember that stuff at school much the same time but by then I was taking the sciences with a bucket of salt, which is why I did not do my degree in a science subject!
 
Old 09-14-2020, 11:58 AM   #9504
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,776

Rep: Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425
The major problem that most people, especially those of us who had High School Science in the 60s, have with Quantum Mechanics started with two misconceptions.

1) The traditional model of atoms that's much like a miniature solar system where electrons are like planets in orbit around the Sun.

2) The perception that things are solid and transposing this perception to the atomic level as if the Double Slit Experiment never happened.

Thankfully I had a Physics teacher in 11th Grade who BTW was a devout Baptist and who characterized photons and possibly all subatomic items as "wavicles". He even speculated that it might be possible that some energy field could cause subatomic particles to behave in one instance or condition as a particle and in it's absence or other condition, a wave of energy.

This is by no means a completely realized theory but it does approximate the crucially important discovery of The Higgs Field/Boson and takes in an important aspect of E=MC^2.

If you imagine an electron as a tiny planet in orbit of course sudden quantum leaps makes no intuitive sense. Earth doesn't suddenly jump orbit to be closer to Mars or Venus. If we add to that the misinterpretation that occurred exactly because of such mix and match, jaundiced views to Heisenberg and Shrodinger, namely The Copenhagen Interpretation, it is not only normal but correct IMHO to view the proposed behaviour of electrons as silly. After all we call their position "orbits" which is entirely misleading and incorrect.

At some early time of the Big Bang everything was just Energy. There was no Mass. Already this is difficult to intuit because we like things to be like us, apparently "solid". To many, simple refrigerator magnets are like Magic. We don't see or intuit the importance of invisible fields having action on distant "objects". We don't intuit that at the subatomic level things are much more like they were in the early Universe - NOT solid but capable of action.

One way to look at it is it is ALL still just energy fields in different forms due to degrees of density and proximity to other fields.

Obviously until we have a solid theory of the elusive Quantum Gravity question there will be LOTS of speculation but the difference here between Science and Religion is that everyone knows, or should know, the "jury" is never in. It is all but certain that just as Einstein cordoned off Newton and expanded the understanding of things and forces, our current understanding of SpaceTime will also get cordoned off, refined and expanded in ways we can't know yet.

Thankfully Science has been characterized as, unlike Mathematics which actually has Proofs, only capable of disproving things which is why progress can be slow. It's like zero-ing in on a dartboard only by knowing everything that is not the dartboard. It's slow, not perfectly accurate, but it is the best we have and it works at always getting better.

Last edited by enorbet; 09-14-2020 at 12:05 PM.
 
Old 09-14-2020, 12:23 PM   #9505
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware, Slarm64 & Android
Posts: 16,144

Rep: Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308Reputation: 2308
I think whatever subject you take your degree in, you end up trotting out B.S. Scientists are the ones who get most offended by it, because they labour under the illusion that their subject is objective. But there are wrongs that are accepted as right - Eugenics being a prime and non-topical example. If you look in 1923, when Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, the scientific evidence for eugenics was unassailable, and those same eugenics papers have not been retracted or refuted to my knowledge. And it was Hitler who attempteded 'pruning the human family tree.' It certainly teaches how dangerous wrong science can be. It's a pity they were not refuted, because such refutations would also refute racism. I hasten to add I'm politically neutral and don't vote, because it's that time again in the Excited States…

In my case, my gripe wasn't the required regurgitation, but the stuff I couldn't say. How the College was stuck in the last millennium; which lecturers should be forced into early retirement; Lack of storage facilities for sensitive hardware, the bone idle techie who wouldn't solder an smt transistor, the requirement to reformat documents in M$ Word so the lecturer's feeble pcs wouldn't puke, etc, etc.
 
Old 09-14-2020, 01:00 PM   #9506
eight.bit.al
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2015
Location: Prison
Distribution: a new distro every day
Posts: 124

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
You're not supposed to ask a lady her age! But I'm talking about the early sixties.
Quote:
__________________
I'm just a little old lady. Don't try to dazzle me with jargon.
You were not asked your age. You were not asked anything that isn't already common knowledge.
Personally, I believe in equal rights. Anything one can asked of a man, can be asked of a woman.

Quote:
No, I'm not talking about shells.
I will gladly defer to your more current understanding of atomic theory, as it's secondary to the main question.

Quote:
istr that someone did ask and was told that the question has no meaning!
That would seem to be a fault with the instructor, not science.

Quote:
In a p-orbital or d-orbital the inner ends of the lobes approach the nucleus but don't reach it. Therefore they do not touch each other. There is an area inbetween where the electron cannot be. So how does it get across to the opposite lobe of the orbital?
So, does my understanding of quantum jump need updating?

8bit
 
Old 09-14-2020, 04:03 PM   #9507
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth&Mars (I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that work on freest-HW; has been KDE, CLI, Novena-SBC but open.. http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 4,888
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567
LOL Mad because religion isn't allowed in education so it made up its own!?. HaHa...

How many facts do religions have, besides the ones that should be: like be kind to each other... that could be a fact if not so many religions and traditions i e opinions,,, born to or not.


A new poll could go: are you faking being religious because:
  1. You enjoy messing with people and playing with weigiebords
  2. want power
  3. am a true believer because [...] of this opinion or I don't understand what an opinion is like what religion to choose
  4. kinda believe
  5. don't want my spouse to hate me?
  6. How else could tinker bell fly
  7. yada-yada
Hopefully more often to most the world is more than a bad joke.
 
Old 09-14-2020, 04:06 PM   #9508
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,776

Rep: Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425
FYI business_kid, Eugenics was NEVER Science let alone unassailable. In fact it's roots date back to at least Plato, a Mystic. It is pseudoscience, a sort of "wolf in sheep's clothing". Some pseudoscience even goes so far as to call itself Science when it clearly is not. One example is so-called "scientific racism" and another is replacing the term Creationism with Intelligent Design. In the famous Dover Case evidence was disclosed and and accepted in a Court of Law demonstrating that literally some texts used the terms interchangeably while discovered drafts has Creationism crossed out and ID inserted.

BTW not voting in the US? Besides the fact that if we don't vote we shouldn't bitch, a point of some interest is listing Ireland as your location does not mean you're a citizen there? You are a US Citizen?
 
Old 09-14-2020, 04:14 PM   #9509
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,776

Rep: Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425Reputation: 4425
@jamison20000e - I don't think it is quite as simple as characterizing the subject as "Religion == Bad". Few things are that simple. I think Jordan Peterson makes some valid points about "Social Glue" but I prefer more objective fair. I strongly suspect you might find this interesting and enlightening. It's a formal discussion between actual degree'd scientists, some of whom are strong Believers and others who are atheists (some capitalized Atheist, others, like Sam Harris, small case). It's not quite as contentious as many assume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o8xxIhMbnA
 
Old 09-14-2020, 06:43 PM   #9510
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth&Mars (I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that work on freest-HW; has been KDE, CLI, Novena-SBC but open.. http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 4,888
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567Reputation: 1567
Arrow

We can't cut the bad out, look around. Fairy tales are fairy tales, belief/opinions make ignorance, willing to kill ignorance!

Can't help any if we don't agree on reality
and reality for most is a subconscious common sense, snap!
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, poser, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 16 07-11-2016 01:48 PM
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:17 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration