Thread: Speed of light not the speed limit of the Universe?

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Well, except that Boyle distinguished something different as empirical "Chymistry" versus all the other things.

Can you tell me why it's different from the other things you believe are the same?

Maybe im tired well i know im tired but what are you asking? I might be able to figure it out tomorrow or later today however you wish to look at it.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Redacted: I thought this was a reference to a different discussion (not sure why, it's pretty clear, sorry DG ... I blame lack of sleep). This paragraph is absolutely correct.

Aint no thing. Done the same shit many times myself.

Originally Posted by Bunni

Government + Science do not go well together, if at all.

It does if the primary goal of research is to make weapons (see the role of Vannevar Bush and MIT in the birth of the government science grant after WWII) with money going into side projects as an offshoot. Unfortunately, it seems like the constituencies/lobbyists are the ones that actually mess with funding these days, asking for "return on investment" and all that, and demanding that government attempt to compete with private industry (see Craig Venter vs. NIH Human Genome Project). There is enough science to go around, but some people think basic science is stupid, useless, or uninteresting to pay for it *cough*.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Quantum mechanics applied to the stock market? Beyond the fundamental systematic error generated by a hint of chaos QM has no application to anything other than quanta ... or so I thought. True the behavior of quanta can effect the macrocosm ... but that is addressed by the error generated from chaos which does get included into most models; and beyond that the stock market is statistics and economics.

Really the stock market is all about statistics: Probability and game theory ...

Do I need to say economics and statistics are not QM? Or further that probability is not QM? Although QM might use them, and the same terms they use, they are not the same thing.

I don't get it? Is this like the movie "What the Bleep do we Know?" where QM was butchered to explain how you can just wish reality to the way you want? I am a sorcerer!

Pseudoscience is alive and well I see.

Increasingly we are beginning to realize that game theory really only works for stock markets when we assume the one thing in human behavior we ought not to assume: that humans are - or try-to be rational most of the time. At least with things like large amounts of money... Game theory has really gotten a big boost from the operational psychology field in recent years.

Originally Posted by Bunni

Only real application of QM into computer science is encryption. If you want to talk about promising area's in science, stem cells are were 'promising potential' is at. But silly government interferes.

Government + Science do not go well together, if at all.

While I agree that government shouldn't limit science, government funding of research is incredibly important, exactly because government doesn't need to be focused on profitability. Private research is great for taking an idea to profitability, but it's terrible at long-shot research, or highly theoretical research.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I have a friend who is working on game theory for his Ph.D. and that is exactly where these new studies are going with it. Altruism is not something economists took into account very long ago, but people do unexpected things so we need to start modeling it. I know I make purchases that are not on the margin in terms of my immediate fiscal benefit.

I

Is that not what the uncertainty principle is for?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

While I agree that government shouldn't limit science, government funding of research is incredibly important, exactly because government doesn't need to be focused on profitability. Private research is great for taking an idea to profitability, but it's terrible at long-shot research, or highly theoretical research.

Thats the catch 22 of it. We dont want government involved in science but we need the funds from government. There simply isn't enough private funding to get anything done. So should the government not at least have a say in where our money is going?

On a different note to sirmoo's comment on government research being for making weapons. Well for the most part i can agree but we have done plenty of research for the military that didn't actually involve a weapon system. At the same time though that research was to help make a platform or detection system for weapons.

Makes you wonder though if the philadelphia experiment was real or not. I wouldn't put it past our government then or now to do it. So the only question is could we actually do it.