22 Jul 18
Originally posted by @apathistThere haven't been new explosives discovered as a result of any discovery since nuclear fusion. I think there is little risk of a more powerful weapon being developed as a result of fundamental physics research. In any case the most powerful hydrogen bomb detonated was the 50 megaton RDS-220 aka Tsar Bomba. The fireball had a radius of about 4km, all buildings were destroyed in the village of Severny 55 km from the hemicentre, window panes were broken up to a distance of 900 km. There really isn't much point in having a weapon with a larger yield than this. So I don't think new knowledge will explode.
The more we learn, the more it explodes. Maybe we should try a different approach.
23 Jul 18
Originally posted by @deepthoughtI don't think he was using 'explode' in the literal sense. Not sure WHAT he meant however.
There haven't been new explosives discovered as a result of any discovery since nuclear fusion. I think there is little risk of a more powerful weapon being developed as a result of fundamental physics research. In any case the most powerful hydrogen bomb detonated was the 50 megaton RDS-220 aka Tsar Bomba. The fireball had a radius of about 4km, all ...[text shortened]... in having a weapon with a larger yield than this. So I don't think new knowledge will explode.
24 Jul 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseSo I felt free to interpret his post as I saw fit.
I don't think he was using 'explode' in the literal sense. Not sure WHAT he meant however.
24 Jul 18
Originally posted by @pjmasksWould you like to Elaborate?
[cut]. And/or..be able to travel into all the other dimensions that we have. There are 11
We can define as many dimensions as we want to (look at the more extreme variations of the string theory)...but waht other (spatial) Dimension beyond our three can you Access by which means?
24 Jul 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @ponderableGood luck on that one🙂
Would you like to Elaborate?
We can define as many dimensions as we want to (look at the more extreme variations of the string theory)...but waht other (spatial) Dimension beyond our three can you Access by which means?
Let's see, if we shrunk ourselves down to Planck length size, maybe we can just step into those other dimensions......
02 Aug 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassMaybe (correct me if I am wrong, Apathist) you are saying we should not stick our heads where it doesn't belong? Some knowledge too dangerous for mankind to know?
What different approach? To not learn?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by @sonhouseI think he is implying that whenever we go one step deeper, we find 10 more steps...a never ending staircase of knowledge. Something like division as a scientific approach will always ultimately fail to accurately describe the system...maybe that is what he is saying.
Maybe (correct me if I am wrong, Apathist) you are saying we should not stick our heads where it doesn't belong? Some knowledge too dangerous for mankind to know?
21 Aug 18
Originally posted by @apathistCan you define what 'it' is in that sentence? Does it for instance, mean the more we learn the more we realize we have a lot more to learn, therefore an infinite series of learning we would need to understand the universe or some such?
The more we learn, the more it explodes. Maybe we should try a different approach.
22 Aug 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassIn lieu of common sense, experimentation.
How do we know where our heads don't belong?
22 Aug 18
Originally posted by @apathistThis seems to be true. The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know. This may explain why most of the really brilliant minds are also the most humble.
The more we learn, the more it explodes. Maybe we should try a different approach.
A different approach? Maybe, but I don't know what that entails.
23 Aug 18
Originally posted by @mchillWe have to ASSUME that is what he meant. He seems to state his POV and then disappear, never to be heard of in the thread again.
This seems to be true. The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know. This may explain why most of the really brilliant minds are also the most humble.
A different approach? Maybe, but I don't know what that entails.