Elpajeroloco said:
hmm, i think that you are exagerating a bit about that, the problem isnt the science beyong our understanding, the problem is that were ahead in science and that is understable, there is nothing out of our world in that, sometimes you can reach the same results with diferent ways, the problem is that with the fall of these civilizations these ways were lost
No, I don't think you understand what's involved.
We can't find anything in any writings to show that they had even a classic "Statics" level understanding of "Engineering Mechanics." You can't design structures without it. We have not even found "reference tables" that would have had to been used when building structures. That's what dumbfounds everyone.
We have found all sorts of tables, references, etc... with regards to base 360, calendars, etc... in South American cultures. We can explain their designs and techniques. But the pyramids in Eqypt, that really gets engineers in awe. We don't know how they designed them without such mathematics or at least tables that were used based on their experiences from previous building projects.
I mean, you don't have to have a developed mathematics and defined branch of engineering mechanics to build. But you would have to have some record -- like a set of reference tables based on experience over the ages -- to apply building techniques they used. We have found
none whatsoever.
Elpajeroloco said:
even the scientifics are biased, i remember the case of the crop circles in europe, some science guys went and mesured the radiation, analised diagrams of the "perfect circles", but in the end a farmer confesed that he was who have done that, and repeated in public his "art"
Yes, I know. People overblow the crop circles. Sometimes a comment becomes fact. They were "near perfect" using techniques that are quite understood and repeatable.
But crop circles compared to pyramid design is a whole different ballgame!
Elpajeroloco said:
Church and God, both are diferent, but i guess you know that
"And the reason you don't like him is because ... ?"
well to me Sagan was more a media guy, than a true scientific, ok, maybe you could say "WTF is happening to this guy!!", and i understand that, but is only IMVHO, but their effors to try to teach us all are very valuable
Ummm, then you
do not know the first thing about Sagan! You only know his media. You don't know about him PRIOR to his "popularization" of astrophysics.
The main character in Contact
mirrors himself. He was a brilliant and respected astrophysicists of many breakthroughs -- not just theories, but of actual, applied science. NASA's JPL recognized this early on, and most of NASA's unmanned missions owe their success to him.
Then he started the
Planetary Society, which includes SETI, and went into his media career and the "popularization of science." He was lambasted and disowned by much of the scientific community for mis-appropriating costly scientific resources to "searching for little green men" and "dumbing down" astrophysics for the lay person. And even his most respected colleagues thought he was "wasting his talents" -- e.g.,
a direct and virtually mirror reference to this was made by the Director of NSF towards his character, Arroway, in Contact.
Elpajeroloco said:
the world isnt only Einstein, Hawking or Sagan -well with this last one i have some troubles to put in the side of the first two,
Of course, because
you do not know the first thing about Sagan BEFORE his media personality.
Elpajeroloco said:
anyway- actually i think that more important than Einstein, are Heisenberg and Srohinger, yes Einstein try to explain the universe and all that, but in the end of the day are the quantum physics that rules and explain truely everything
No one is "more important."
God knows if it wasn't for Newton's lifetime, calculus would have not only come later but it would not be as developed as it is today. And it's still quite incomplete and more complex than it needs to be. There are select transforms for linear differential equations (e.g., Laplace and Fourier are two we heavily use in EE), but there are so many possibly transforms yet to be discovered -- possibly for non-linear as well.
Elpajeroloco said:
the Hawking works arent so valuable to the investigative science -some guys gona kill me, lol-, really the work and theory of the black-holes and virtual particles emmision isnt so great and dont unify both relativity and quantum physics, is more like a experimental theory
Then it seems you
do not know the first thing about Hawkings either! Stop reading "popular science" and actually sit down and read how the man works with 7th order differential equations!
Elpajeroloco said:
Hawking is one of the supporters of the "closed" universe, that is,a big bang, and big crunch, but some scientifics are considering that actually our universe is only a little piece of the whole unverse, that is our universe can be a "open" one, in a HUGE closed megauniverse, (Lindes inflation theory)
And you're still reading "popular science" mags.
Elpajeroloco said:
but i think that the true science dudes are in quantum physics and not in relativity and cosmology
And I think you're lack of having an "open mind" is readily apparent in that statement. Astrophysics and quantum physics are complimentary.
Elpajeroloco said:
yes, but the point is how our feelings and biased thinking affect in the decitions, for example Einstein was against the quantum guys, because he was sure that "'God does not play dice with the universe",in Contact the main feeling of the movie was that loneliness in the "cold universe" then build that stuff,not a debate of "what if?"
I really think you're out-of-the-ballpark there. I think you're applying bits and pieces to things you don't understand at all. Or worse yet, you're reading other people's interpretations.
Newton, Einstien and, hell, modern engineering is based on being able to completely explain any system with a set of equations that factor in variables of all rates of change that affect other variables in a system. It's very accurate, very precise, very complete.
Quantum physics is probably going to lead to a new branch of calculus and will help us simplify how we describe many systems. I see it as a very nice compliment to what we already have and could very much use.
Elpajeroloco said:
,the default thinking was advanced aliens that want to be our big brothers, not by facts, only subjetive, maybe a romantic interepretation, not of aliens, but of us, then putting the God vs Science thing, when was realy Christianism vs Science, never liked the concept of the movie
Dude, Sagan was just interjecting the realism of how some people would act if we contacted other life. I found it a crapload more refreshing than the "perfect/goodie-goodie" and unrealistic attitude commonly found in Star Trek.
Elpajeroloco said:
but what if some ETs making a huge gate to a planetary assault, they use communications to send planes of the gates, and left the stupid humans to built that?? doomed by that "i feel alone in the universe", i think that the movie would had more depth
Dude, you just totally missed that point! The function of the National Security Advisor to the President is to always present what the "worst case security issue" could be to the US. By default, he assumes threat. By default, he is always looking for a way to give the President control of anything.
I thought the ending of
Contact in this regard was Sagan's utmost brilliance!
No, it's not the "Star Trek" ending. It was a crapload more realistic.
