LHC Discovers the Universe was once Liquid

MorkandMindy · Dec 3, 2010

Wiccan_Child said:
Err... yes, they will. If it's available free of charge, they can spend virtually nothing on the production costs. They can research why it works, and synthesise more effective strains, more regimented and safe doses, etc. And, indeed, this is exactly what they do. New drugs come as often from the natural world as they do from the lab.

I should have said 'publicise' rather than 'research'. It is almost self-evident pharmaceutical companies won't pay to publicise another company's product or equally one that is already available and can't be patented.

In the case of salicylic acid there are no other strains, but investigating the mechanism could lead to alternatives which are safer or otherwise better in some way.

I may have misremembered a bit; salicylic acid is great first aid but for serious clot-busting you may require... a vampire bat.

(And yes that is where developing a synthetic drug would be useful)

Wiccan_Child said:
Exactly. You heard. Is there any actual evidence for this, or is just an old wives tale? Lord knows many abound. "Nosebleed? Tilt your head back!"

I recall a failure to take aspirin sufficiently seriously back a decade or two ago but am not going to investigate that for supporting evidence. It was commented back then that since no one was going to make a lot of money out of it, that it wasn't being adequately promoted at the time, but it certainly has caught on very well since.

Psudopod · Dec 4, 2010

I have many. They were tried for thousands of years. But none of them are clinically tested by western medical standard.

If they're not clinically trested, how do you know they are better?

juvenissun · Dec 4, 2010

Psudopod said:
If they're not clinically trested, how do you know they are better?

They have been used. I am not sure they have been "clinically" tested. Some said they work miraculously. Some said they do not work at all.

juvenissun · Dec 4, 2010

Wiccan_Child said:
Can you prove that?

Why isn't it scientific to study the medicinal and other beneficent properties of herbs?

Sometimes, I wrote this in the reference of a particular person: this person is very smart, but he could be a slow learner.

On the issue we are debating, I have said all I need to say so far. If you have a better question, I will try to answer.

Wiccan_Child · Dec 4, 2010

MorkandMindy said:
I should have said 'publicise' rather than 'research'. It is almost self-evident pharmaceutical companies won't pay to publicise another company's product or equally one that is already available and can't be patented.

But they will pay if it can be patented - they will research the drug to find out how it works, and how to create better versions of it. Leeches are famously used for their anaesthetic and anti-coagulant properties, and biomedical research is focussed on synthesising these drugs.

MorkandMindy said:
In the case of salicylic acid there are no other strains, but investigating the mechanism could lead to alternatives which are safer or otherwise better in some way.

I may have misremembered a bit; salicylic acid is great first aid but for serious clot-busting you may require... a vampire bat.

(And yes that is where developing a synthetic drug would be useful)

Which is exactly what they are doing. Researching and synthesising new drugs.

MorkandMindy said:
I recall a failure to take aspirin sufficiently seriously back a decade or two ago but am not going to investigate that for supporting evidence. It was commented back then that since no one was going to make a lot of money out of it, that it wasn't being adequately promoted at the time, but it certainly has caught on very well since.

Because its efficacy made it a financially viable product.

Wiccan_Child · Dec 4, 2010

juvenissun said:
They have been used. I am not sure they have been "clinically" tested.Some said they work miraculously. Some said they do not work at all.

If there have been no tests, if you have only the word of shamans and soothsayers, how do you know they work at all?

juvenissun said:
Sometimes, I wrote this in the reference of a particular person: this person is very smart, but he could be a slow learner.

Patronising me, juvenissun?

juvenissun said:
On the issue we are debating, I have said all I need to say so far. If you have a better question, I will try to answer.

Since you have yet to answer either the fundamental question ("What, beyond science, can give us vaccines and quantum mechanics?"), or explain your cryptic response ("Herbs can give us vaccines completely divorced from science!"), I stand ready to receive hear your explanations.

Until then, there's not a lot more to discuss. You claim science is 'not enough', but refuse to say how science is insufficient. You claim to know how herbs can vaccinate us, but refuse to say how. Go figure.

Psudopod · Dec 4, 2010

They have been used. I am not sure they have been "clinically" tested. Some said they work miraculously. Some said they do not work at all.

My question still stands. How do you know they are better? Why should we switch to using these unnamed herbs if we don't know if they are better than the currently used drugs. Lots have things have been used in the past, but the reason they are not used to day is because things that were demonstratably better came along.

juvenissun · Dec 4, 2010

Psudopod said:
My question still stands. How do you know they are better? Why should we switch to using these unnamed herbs if we don't know if they are better than the currently used drugs. Lots have things have been used in the past, but the reason they are not used to day is because things that were demonstratably better came along.

That is not in your original question, even it is a good one.

People sought, sometimes exhausted, western medical treatment first because it is said to be more "scientific". But when western medicine failed them, they went to "alternative" medicine. Some are cured as a result.

That is how I know.

Wiccan_Child · Dec 4, 2010

juvenissun said:
That is not in your original question, even it is a good one.

People sought, sometimes exhausted, western medical treatment first because it is said to be more "scientific". But when western medicine failed them, they went to "alternative" medicine. Some are cured as a result.

That is how I know.

Can you actually demonstrate this, though? Can you demonstrate that any 'alternative' medicine, not endorsed by modern science, genuinely does what it claims to do? Homoeopathy, acupuncture, crystal healing, whale song... anything?

juvenissun · Dec 4, 2010

Wiccan_Child said:
Can you actually demonstrate this, though? Can you demonstrate that any 'alternative' medicine, not endorsed by modern science, genuinely does what it claims to do? Homoeopathy, acupuncture, crystal healing, whale song... anything?

How do I demonstrate?

Nostromo · Dec 4, 2010

juvenissun said:
How do I demonstrate?

That might just be the $64,000 question of this thread.

I'd like to see how this pans out.

Wiccan_Child · Dec 4, 2010

juvenissun said:
How do I demonstrate?

That, sir, is a problem you have to figure out for yourself.

You said: "People sought, sometimes exhausted, western medical treatment first because it is said to be more "scientific". But when western medicine failed them, they went to "alternative" medicine. Some are cured as a result."

In other words, you claimed that some people are cured as a result of going to 'alternative' medicine. How do you know this claim is true? Are there studies that demonstrate acupuncture, homoeopathy, crystal healing, intercessory prayer, etc, actually do heal people?
More interestingly, do these 'alternative' techniques do things that modern science can't? Do they cure cancer, regrow amputated limbs, and such like?

juvenissun · Dec 5, 2010

Wiccan_Child said:
That, sir, is a problem you have to figure out for yourself.

You said: "People sought, sometimes exhausted, western medical treatment first because it is said to be more "scientific". But when western medicine failed them, they went to "alternative" medicine. Some are cured as a result."

In other words, you claimed that some people are cured as a result of going to 'alternative' medicine. How do you know this claim is true? Are there studies that demonstrate acupuncture, homoeopathy, crystal healing, intercessory prayer, etc, actually do heal people?
More interestingly, do these 'alternative' techniques do things that modern science can't? Do they cure cancer, regrow amputated limbs, and such like?

You can read some newspaper articles. Would that be good enough?
Or, you can interview some people who experienced it.

Wiccan_Child · Dec 5, 2010

juvenissun said:
You can read some newspaper articles. Would that be good enough?

Newspapers aren't exactly known for their scholarly integrity and factual accuracy...

juvenissun said:
Or, you can interview some people who experienced it.

And how would that ascertain whether 'alternative' medicine genuinely works? People lie, people are mistaken, etc. A controlled study, however, is far less susceptible to subjective bias - hence why I've asked for such a demonstration.

Once again, you believe, so you must have some reason for believing. What is this reason?

juvenissun · Dec 5, 2010

Wiccan_Child said:
Newspapers aren't exactly known for their scholarly integrity and factual accuracy...

And how would that ascertain whether 'alternative' medicine genuinely works? People lie, people are mistaken, etc. A controlled study, however, is far less susceptible to subjective bias - hence why I've asked for such a demonstration.

Once again, you believe, so you must have some reason for believing. What is this reason?

If I gave you a scientific support of herb medicine, then you win the debate. So, even I have it (I don't), I won't tell you that. Do not get the debate backward!

I have no reason, no evidence and no support. But if you don't believe that, you are ignorant. (hey!, that is what wisdom is about).

Nostromo · Dec 5, 2010

So you don't really care about the truth, only winning a debate?

Wiccan_Child · Dec 5, 2010

juvenissun said:
If I gave you a scientific support of herb medicine, then you win the debate. So, even I have it (I don't), I won't tell you that.

You realise that by doing this, you acknowledge that you're wrong, don't you? Either a) herbs can't be shown to do anything, so you're wrong, or b) herbs can be shown to something, which makes them scientific, which makes you wrong.

juvenissun said:
Do not get the debate backward!

The debate is to ascertain truth. 'Winning' is not important, at least not to me.

So. You admit (or lie) here that you have no evidence or supporting documentation that 'alternative' medicine actually works. Why, then, did you claim to know it works?

juvenissun said:
I have no reason, no evidence and no support. But if you don't believe that, you are ignorant. (hey!, that is what wisdom is about).

If you have no reason, evidence or support, why did you claim you knew it worked?

Wiccan_Child · Dec 5, 2010

Nostromo said:
So you don't really care about the truth, only winning a debate?

It's probably the most salient point he's ever made

Doveaman · Dec 5, 2010

Wiccan_Child said:
We always knew the universe had a fine plasma dispersed through space. Plasma cosmologists, however, assert that this plasma explains the large-scale phenomena we see better than gravity and dark matter.

Your dark-matter universe relies on hypothetical dark stuff that has never been verified. Space plasma has been verified and its electrical effects can be observed everywhere throughout the universe, including the sustained EM fields it generates throughout space.

Not only has your dark stuff not been verified but it is also an embarrassment to many scientists who rely on it:

“It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical.” - Jim Peebles, Princeton University.

I suppose any model of the universe that relies on 96% hypothetical dark stuff should be an embarrassment to any scientists since such dark stuff is nothing more than “god of the gaps” given different names. But I guess that’s the way modern science works, right.

The LHC showed that the early universe was also a plasma (which we hitherto didn't know, so kudos to the LHC),

If the present universe is a plasma then it is expected that the early universe would have also been a plasma. Nothing new here, only a confirmation of what plasma cosmology predicts, so kudos to the LHC.

and that it behaved like a liquid (again, something we hitherto did not know).

Space plasma behaves like a liquid, therefore it is expected that an early plasma universe would have behaved like a liquid. Nothing new here, only a confirmation of what plasma cosmology predicts, so kudos to the LHC.

Wiccan_Child · Dec 5, 2010

Doveaman said:
Your dark-matter universe relies on hypothetical dark stuff that has never been verified. Space plasma has been verified and its electrical effects can be observed everywhere throughout the universe, including the sustained EM fields it generates throughout space.

Not only has your dark stuff not been verified but it is also an embarrassment to many scientists who rely on it:

It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical. - Jim Peebles, Princeton University.

I suppose any model of the universe that relies on 96% hypothetical dark stuff should be an embarrassment to any scientists since such dark stuff is nothing more than god of the gaps given different names. But I guess thats the way modern science works, right.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of all that evidence... but by all means, cite more out-of-context quotes and draw erroneous conclusions from them. Nothing like a bit of equivocation to go with my morning cup of tea.

Doveaman said:
If the present universe is a plasma then it is expected that the early universe would have also been a plasma.

If you mean 'is filled with a plasma', then, well, you're still wrong - it doesn't follow that the early universe must necessarily have been a superhot plasma.

Doveaman said:
Space plasma behaves like a liquid,

Source?

Doveaman said:
therefore it is expected that an early plasma universe would have behaved like a liquid.

Why? The early universe existed in vastly different conditions than today.

LHC Discovers the Universe was once Liquid

Andrew Yang's Forward Party

Godspeed, Spacebat

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

Contributor

Godspeed, Spacebat

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Contributor

Contributor

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency