Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arcvasti]

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

[Neonivek]

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

Law of conservation: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

[Tawa]

The inherent flaw with science is ultimately that it needs to be filtered through people.

I will make the statement that, while I'm not sure if you're trying to advocate religion or what, that religion has also been filtered through people.

[Arcvasti]

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

Law of conservation: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Then why do we have any to start with? That always sort of puzzled me. I suppose I'll have to settle for Biocide then, which is very much more possible and mostly achieves the same result, albeit more temporarily.

EDIT

The inherent flaw with science is ultimately that it needs to be filtered through people.

I will make the statement that, while I'm not sure if you're trying to advocate religion or what, that religion has also been filtered through people.

I'm sorry to say this, but MANY things have been filtered through people. Mostly oxygen. And not all religion is filtered through people, just the ones that exist are.

[Neonivek]

The inherent flaw with science is ultimately that it needs to be filtered through people.

I will make the statement that, while I'm not sure if you're trying to advocate religion or what, that religion has also been filtered through people.

Ohhh >_> I wasn't actually talking about religion. Nor was I suggesting they are in equal or even similar terms. Heck I don't even think they are related.

Religion is an entirely different beast that is best left... not here. It is too diverse in goal and intent and is politically charged.

Science at least has understood parameters, requirements, and goals that can be spoken of in objective terms without too much political maneuvering.

Or rather... I am only speaking of science. Religion is something else and I will NOT get into the dumb of "science versus religion".

[Tawa]

The inherent flaw with science is ultimately that it needs to be filtered through people.

I will make the statement that, while I'm not sure if you're trying to advocate religion or what, that religion has also been filtered through people.

Ohhh >_> I wasn't actually talking about religion. Nor was I suggesting they are in equal or even similar terms. Heck I don't even think they are related.

Religion is an entirely different beast that is best left... not here.

Science at least has understood parameters, requirements, and goals that can be spoken of in objective terms without too much political maneuvering.

Or rather... I am only speaking of science. Religion is something else and I will NOT get into the dumb of "science versus religion".

Oh, OK. I noticed that that had been the topic a few pages back, so I retreated to tvtropes until it died down a little bit.

In any case, I'm sick of people touting bullshit as science as well, so I feel you on those grounds.

[Putnam]

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

Law of conservation: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Then why do we have any to start with? That always sort of puzzled me. I suppose I'll have to settle for Biocide then, which is very much more possible and mostly achieves the same result, albeit more temporarily.

We have any to start with because, as far as we can tell, it started with it all.

[Neonivek]

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

Law of conservation: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Then why do we have any to start with? That always sort of puzzled me. I suppose I'll have to settle for Biocide then, which is very much more possible and mostly achieves the same result, albeit more temporarily.

We have any to start with because, as far as we can tell, it started with it all.

Science ACTUALLY has a word for that: Because Axiom

Another possible reason is spontaneous generation... which is... 0 = 0... which is the equivilant of -2 + 2 = 0

[Orange Wizard]

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

Law of conservation: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Yes, it can. The entire nuclear power industry relies on converting matter into energy.

[Bauglir]

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

Law of conservation: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Then why do we have any to start with? That always sort of puzzled me. I suppose I'll have to settle for Biocide then, which is very much more possible and mostly achieves the same result, albeit more temporarily.

We have any to start with because, as far as we can tell, it started with it all.

Surely we could get rid of the matter by converting energy into antimatter and spewing it all over the place? Now, it'd get tricky at the end, when you have to batch exactly enough antimatter to annihilate the generator before getting started on that, and you only get one shot at it, but those are matters for the engineers.

I mean yeah you wind up with energy but at least the matter is gone. Maybe we could pipe the energy into a black h- DAMMIT

[Neonivek]

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

Law of conservation: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Yes, it can. The entire nuclear power industry relies on converting matter into energy.

Well.... not exactly...

In the sense that nuclear energy doesn't turn protons, electrons, and neutrons into energy directly but rather uses them to heat water which powers turbines.

It is using the energy released from fusion to heat water. Yet electrons, Neutrons, and Protons are matter and that is what is being released from nuclear material.

This essentially means that nuclear energy doesn't convert matter into energy.

[Worldmaster27]

Spontaneous generation is only in regards to organisms, and was officially disproven about 100 years ago.

It basically said that air caused maggots, corn kernels caused mice, and a bunch of other fairly obviously-wrong-to-us stuff

[Arcvasti]

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

Law of conservation: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Then why do we have any to start with? That always sort of puzzled me. I suppose I'll have to settle for Biocide then, which is very much more possible and mostly achieves the same result, albeit more temporarily.

We have any to start with because, as far as we can tell, it started with it all.

Science ACTUALLY has a word for that: Because Axiom

Another possible reason is spontaneous generation... which is... 0 = 0... which is the equivilant of -2 + 2 = 0

So quantum tunnelingish stuff on a universal scale? I'm talking about quantum tunneling as in the spontaneous manifestation of a paired election and proton which usually then annihilate each other instantly. Not sure if that's the proper term.

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

Law of conservation: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Yes, it can. The entire nuclear power industry relies on converting matter into energy.

Converted, not destroyed. Energy is just Matter, but diagonal. Or maybe the other way around.

[Descan]

Matter is just really, really, really condensed energy though, so it's okay.


Anyway, iirc nuclear energy is like, there's a binding energy for uranium, and a binding energy for whatever it splits into (as well as hydrogen and helium, when you're dealing with fusion) and they don't equal the same amount? So the energy released is the difference between the two binding energies.


Or something like that. :v

[Orange Wizard]

The obvious solution is omnicide. With no more life or matter or energy, Science has up to 13% less people involved in the process this way.

Law of conservation: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Yes, it can. The entire nuclear power industry relies on converting matter into energy.

Well.... not exactly...
In the sense that nuclear energy doesn't turn protons, electrons, and neutrons into energy directly but rather uses them to heat water which powers turbines.
It is using the energy released from fusion to heat water. Yet electrons, Neutrons, and Protons are matter and that is what is being released from nuclear material.
This essentially means that nuclear energy doesn't convert matter into energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy#Mass_defect