Random question is random

But that never stopped my curiosity. Does anyone know of any other absolute dating system besides radiometric dating concerning geology?

What the fuck

I do yes, but you'll have to play TFN to find out the answer. It's an easter egg I placed somewhere in the game...

ThePhilosopher wrote:

What the fuck

I warned you that it was random.

You could chain the girl to the wall, so she won't run away

-

Childe of Malkav wrote:

You could chain the girl to the wall, so she won't run away

-

No, no... he said the question had to do with geology. So he's dating rocks. I've heard that quartz puts out if you buy dinner, but Hematite is locked at the knees.

BTW... you DO know that this isn't exactly the forum for asking geology questions, right? Or does this in some small way relate to vampires or gaming?

PGM1961 wrote:

BTW... you DO know that this isn't exactly the forum for asking geology questions, right? Or does this in some small way relate to vampires or gaming?

Oh, I know. Like I said, it was a weird exhibition of my curiosity. And no, nothing directly relating to vampires and gaming. But, you never know how people will answer such questions, which is why I ask.

Datation with Carbon 14 (which means to calculate how much carbon has become radioactive.. the % of radioactive carbon indicates age ^^) is the best human science can do

Sometimes Vampires walk on rocks making this topic very relavent to this forum, LOL. Maybe he plans on playing a Vampiric-Geologist who plans on studying the age of rocks every night around midnight.

I suppose I could always try to do a Beckett-like character in the future. Who finds out to his horror that all dating methods available are practically useless and the Earth really isn't a few billion years old.

Ask a human Mage, and they'll tell you that human beliefs shape the world into it's current form. Most of the world believes in science and evolution, so their findings are influenced by what they expect to find. Sort of like how in quantum mechanics, observing a particle affects that particle... until observation, it exists in sort of a flux between particle and wave. So when archaeologists dig for fossils, they find what they expect to find -- instead of dragon remains, they find dinosaurs, or ape species instead of trolls or ogres. Or, if they're more open-minded, maybe the dragon bones don't totally change into dinosaur fossils, so they discover a new breed of dinosaur. Or, in the case of carbon dating, any anomalous findings are considered to be contaminated, instead of proof that the world isn't billions of years old.

(I love this kind of speculation!)

That doesn't make much sense. If that were the case, then all sides of the scientific community would have been finding contradicting evidence from day one, based on what they wanted to find. Science would have been seen as a self-contradicting discipline and probably would have been abandoned in the 1700s, or the religious mindset that was stronger back then would have continually found evidence that supported their side, defeating and removing uniformentarinism and naturalism before they had a chance to expand throughout the scientific community.

Depends on the strength of will and the collective vision. There is still physics and the mundane mechanics behind everything but little quirks and inexplicable occurances that science can't explain, or should be impossible but still occur.

For example, bumble bees.

8people wrote:

Depends on the strength of will and the collective vision. There is still physics and the mundane mechanics behind everything but little quirks and inexplicable occurances that science can't explain, or should be impossible but still occur.

For example, bumble bees.

Well, considering that scientists can be as dogmatic as everyone else (if not more so if one takes a quick look at the scientific community's initial reaction to evolution and plate tectonics) than all I see is a quick death for naturalism.

I will now attempt to colloquialize and paraphrase a guy named Jeff.

I'm not Jeff. There's this guy named Jeff who is a casual aquaintence of mine and he says the scientific method itself is an excercise in faith. Specifically the hypothesis. One must first assume an outcome and then test it. Assuming the unkown from a point which is known is the hypothesis. The gap between the previously known and the yet-to-be known is mystery. The assumption which attempts to traverse the mysterious gap between the known and the unkown is faith. The hypothesis, and by extension the scientific method, is an excercise in faith.

Next to Jeff, my command of the English language is paltry at best; and he's six months younger than I am. This is how dude raps. This is his slam poetry. This is his blog:

http://notnoteworthy.blogspot.com/

I'm sorry I couldn't refer you to the specific post I culled this from because it's been a few years since he first posted his take on the scientific method.

------

The one contradiction in life which always gets me is, "Love your enemy." There is nothing more possible and counterintuitive than this, be it bumble bee flight or quantum states being in and out of phase simultaneously.

Sciences are a tool to put the world in equation (in other words to rationalize it) and thus be able to work on it. A classic example is Newton mechanic which explained certain things. With time, exceptions to these "rules" were found, more and more exceptions until Einstein came up with is quantum mechanic, able to explain and act on more things surrounding us. Then exceptions keep accumulating since...

Science are not the reality or the truth. They are just the best we could come up with allowing us to act on the surrounding world.

Kelben wrote:

Sciences are a tool to put the world in equation (in other words to rationalize it) and thus be able to work on it. A classic example is Newton mechanic which explained certain things. With time, exceptions to these "rules" were found, more and more exceptions until Einstein came up with is quantum mechanic, able to explain and act on more things surrounding us. Then exceptions keep accumulating since...

Science are not the reality or the truth. They are just the best we could come up with allowing us to act on the surrounding world.

As an active scientist I could only applaud.
Short version of scientific progress: colection of facts - hypotesis - tests - thesis (theory)
And that should be the end. But:
Theory - new facts contrary to/ not explained by the theory - new hypothesis - new tests - new theory...
Doable as many times as you want.
If you ever get bored start working in any reasearch team

Hehehe, I am more on the application side at the moment but who knows how my career will evolve. Besides, I feel bored sometimes