It blows my mind anyway. Also, exactly the same principle in particle physics. Nuclei of atoms, to scale, are unimaginably far apart from the electrons that circulate them.
I know this could apply to every generation, but this is a great time to be alive for both astro and particle physics discoveries.
I agree, Robert.
Science is different now and will be much more so in the next 100/200/1000 years.
If we look at history and the great mathematicians and scientists, they derived laws based on observation and measurement. Pythagoras would have measured the sides of a thousand right angled triangles and used the results to work out the relationship - he didn't theorise and then prove the theory. Newton based his Laws of Motion on observation - 'the harder I hit him the more it hurts him but also the more painful my fist' would derive the third law for example.
Einstein on the other hand produced theories that at the time he didn't have the means to test - but a hundred years on we do have some ways of testing the General Theory of Relativity and he was almost certainly right. That's genius on a different level (not that Newton wasn't a genius of course).
I'm reading Bryson's book on the history of everything at the moment. Newton was an absolut mentalist, he just had theories on things lying about that he never told people about that turned about to be theories we still use to this day. You wonder how many more he came up with. Also I'm sure it was him that he was interested in alchemy and when he died they tested his hair and found a large content of mercury in it.
I'm reading Bryson's book on the history of everything at the moment. Newton was an absolut mentalist, he just had theories on things lying about that he never told people about that turned about to be theories we still use to this day. You wonder how many more he came up with. Also I'm sure it was him that he was interested in alchemy and when he died they tested his hair and found a large content of mercury in it.
Yep, he was obsesssed with alchemy spent more time on it than he did on any other subject. It's a shame how many great minds have spent so much time on that dead end.
"Steven Pinker rejects the idea of an inevitable “climb upward” of evolution: “Since evolution does not strive for a goal but just happens, it uses the adaptation most useful for a given ecological niche, and the fact that, on Earth, this led to technological intelligence only once so far may suggest that this outcome of natural selection is rare and hence by no means a certain development of the evolution of a tree of life.”"
We assume that if a life form has been around for longer than us that it must be more advanced, actually earth proves that's not necessarily the case.
Half hour ?? - blimey, my brain was hurting after 2 minutes ! Fascinating though.
I wonder if they're talking about the 'Fermi Paradox' on the Millwall Forum?
Cabbles/BobMunro - you're clearly on a different planet to the rest of us - you must be one of the blokes i used to sit behind in the West Stand , as he was quite clearly in a different dimension .
Half hour ?? - blimey, my brain was hurting after 2 minutes ! Fascinating though.
I wonder if they're talking about the 'Fermi Paradox' on the Millwall Forum?
Cabbles/BobMunro - you're clearly on a different planet to the rest of us - you must be one of the blokes i used to sit behind in the West Stand , as he was quite clearly in a different dimension .
Always been interested in this stuff but never really pursued the interest. Any recommended books to get started?
Bill Bryson's short history of everything is good. Astronomy wise, it's tough because a lot of them are maths related (way above my head). I'll have a think mate. TED talks are good. Just type astronomy into the search function. I found them useful.
Comments
Science is different now and will be much more so in the next 100/200/1000 years.
If we look at history and the great mathematicians and scientists, they derived laws based on observation and measurement. Pythagoras would have measured the sides of a thousand right angled triangles and used the results to work out the relationship - he didn't theorise and then prove the theory. Newton based his Laws of Motion on observation - 'the harder I hit him the more it hurts him but also the more painful my fist' would derive the third law for example.
Einstein on the other hand produced theories that at the time he didn't have the means to test - but a hundred years on we do have some ways of testing the General Theory of Relativity and he was almost certainly right. That's genius on a different level (not that Newton wasn't a genius of course).
So much more to come.
"Steven Pinker rejects the idea of an inevitable “climb upward” of evolution: “Since evolution does not strive for a goal but just happens, it uses the adaptation most useful for a given ecological niche, and the fact that, on Earth, this led to technological intelligence only once so far may suggest that this outcome of natural selection is rare and hence by no means a certain development of the evolution of a tree of life.”"
We assume that if a life form has been around for longer than us that it must be more advanced, actually earth proves that's not necessarily the case.
I wonder if they're talking about the 'Fermi Paradox' on the Millwall Forum?
Cabbles/BobMunro - you're clearly on a different planet to the rest of us - you must be one of the blokes i used to sit behind in the West Stand , as he was quite clearly in a different dimension .