Researchers say new state of matter could extend Moore's Law

[Kharak]

No. It is not.

Creation Science = creation + science.

That may be why no journal of creation science exists . . .

 

[juvenissun]

That may be why no journal of creation science exists . . .

The concept of creation does not belong to science. But it is a plus to science. Do you understand the meaning of "plus"?

 

[TheGnome]

The concept of creation does not belong to science. But it is a plus to science. Do you understand the meaning of "plus"?

The special theory of creation is dead, achieving a mighty blow with Darwin's On the Origin of Species and then the deadly blows when scientists confirmed Darwin's theory through experimentation.

After 150 years, there has yet to be any serious challenged to the theory of evolution. Just give up.

 

[Kharak]

The concept of creation does not belong to science. But it is a plus to science. Do you understand the meaning of "plus"?

Do you understand 1 + (-1) = 0?

"Creation" is not a plus to science, it is the antithesis of science. It's like pouring coffee in a cup and then spilling the contents on your lap. You throw away the naturalistic, material principles of science for assuming that there is a direct, supernatural influence and thus no principle in a real testable model. Creationism gives up on science by proclaiming and not learning. As wise Chinese philosopher remarked, "To study and not think is a waste of time. To think and not study is dangerous."

 

[Radagast]

Why does every thread here get derailed into a creation vs evolution debate?

 

[juvenissun]

Why does every thread here get derailed into a creation vs evolution debate?

Good question. I don't usually do that here. But ...

This thread started with something that nobody knows anything about. If the conversation is going to continue, then what else to talk about? You tell me what would be you comment on the 2 1/2 dimension.

 

[billwald]

Thread title illustrates the contemporary meaningless of the word, "law."

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

This is a bad excuse. We are "made" to explore. Saying "God does it" will not stop the spirit of human exploration. The fact of "God does it", however, can be and should be understood in a positive way, rather than a negative one as you said. A creation scientist would never give up scientific research even s/he recognized that everything is done by God. In comparison, an atheistic scientist is much more easily be discouraged by the overwhelming amount of unknowns we are facing.

Science can only study natural phenomenon. If "God did it", then it is not a natural phenomenon and science cannot be of any more use. Does a creation scientist hope to explain how God created the earth? What processes he used? No. All they can seek to do is disprove evolution and then say that the alternative is creation which cannot be proved.

Now I'm not saying the earth wasn't created (I honestly don't know). I'm saying that once God is involved it is no longer science.

 

[Tomk80]

I read an interesting article on Moore's law in a dutch popular science magazine in connection to this. According to that article, Moore's law is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reason being that since Moore posited his law, it has become the goal of IT companies to achieve this doubling. So it's not the case that there is some external factor that makes Moore's law work, but rather the fact that the industry tries to achieve Moore's law. If he had posited a slower or faster rate, this would be the speed the industry achieves.

Just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't like science by press release. What happened to working in the lab, then writing a journal or conference paper?

A quick google finds only clones of the press release. I wonder if they're raising venture capital?

Perhaps the article is going to come? Generally the publication of a scientific paper takes a few months. A short press release doesn't take any time at all.

edited to add: It has actually already been published: B.A. Piot et al. Wigner crystallization in a quasi-three-dimensional electronic system Nature Physics (05 Oct 2008), doi: 10.1038/nphys1094, Letters

I don't have access to Nature Physics at my institute, so if someone else can get it and explain it, that would be cool.

 

[Tomk80]

Good question. I don't usually do that here. But ...

This thread started with something that nobody knows anything about. If the conversation is going to continue, then what else to talk about? You tell me what would be you comment on the 2 1/2 dimension.

Rather than basking in ignorance like you want to do, I would prefer if someone with access to nature physics downloaded the article, studied it and explained what quasi-3-dimensional entails. I'm sure someone with a reasonable grasp of physics would be able to.

 

[Radagast]

Rather than basking in ignorance like you want to do, I would prefer if someone with access to nature physics downloaded the article, studied it and explained what quasi-3-dimensional entails. I'm sure someone with a reasonable grasp of physics would be able to.

That would be great.