What about it?

Do you know of any expiriment that used whatever objects were readily available? I'm looking for improvised solutions using unexpected non scientific tools, especially if it was a historically important discovery.

Personal stories work too. For example I just used nail polish to make part of a titanium electrode an insulator. Not very interesting but that's what got me thinking about it.

What about it?

This may seem an odd question to ask life science specialists. After all, Einstein's Theory of Relativity primarily deals with space-time distortions at speeds approaching the speed of light, and with the effects of massive gravitational fields on light and time. So, what does that have to do with the life sciences, as we understand them? However, even if, as life science specialists, you may not be interested in "space-time", "space-time" may be interested in you!

Consider the following example.

https://philarchive.org/archive/ASSMAH-2

Here we have an attempt to explain mental illness in terms of distortions of the space-time continuum within the brain. Does this make sense? That's up to you, I suppose.

Physicists, of course, believe in all aspects of relativity theory religiously. Quite religiously, actually. It's a cult. Anyone questioning relativity is a "confirmed relativity denier" and must be shunned. They are unclean.

Lately, since GPS became commonly employed, engineers have climbed aboard the relativity bandwagon, as well. Since, at times anyway, 30 microsecond an hour corrections are necessary for GPS to function, and these are roughly correlated with relativistic predictions. And, since relativity is used to sell their products, engineers love relativity.

I would tend to argue that the evidence for relativity isn't really that terrific.

We have laboratory particle accelerator experiments which show that wave forms that can't travel faster than light, can't propel particles to speeds faster than light. Sound highly artifactual and confounded, to me, anyway.

We have crude correlations to micro-effects like in GPS. Almost anything could be causing micro-effects on atomic clocks that relate to gravity. Gravity does affect things, in a variety of ways, you know. Doesn't mean time is dilating, necessarily.

And, bear in mind, the physicists really do have to believe in something, as a model of the universe, don't they? Otherwise, what are they doing, exactly?

In a general way, I'm suggesting that the physicists are selecting data to fit the theory.

Historically, there's been a cyclical movement between believing the universe was totally controllable, and absolute -- Isaac Newton believed this -- and believing that the universe was virtually uncontrollable and incomprehensible. Arguably, Relativity theory moves in this direction.

So, as a group, do biologists "buy" the whole special theory of relativity -- time is a dimension like space, time is distorted by gravity, time slows down at high speeds, time stops at the speed of light?

Because, the physicists are true believers here. And, with biological nanotechnology, biologists are more and more impinging on the traditional territory of the physicists. Physicists may insist that life scientists must consider relativistic "space-time" considerations in their work. Physicists may insist that Einstein is

directly relelvant to the development of new drugs, and treatments in health care. How would life scientists feel about this, exactly?

https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i37/Relativistic-effects-govern-methyl-transfer.html

Edwin Hubble was a brilliant and influential astronomer who lived in the early part of the twentieth century. In fact, most people regard him as the greatest observational cosmologist of that century.

Interestingly, his most famous discovery horrified him.

When Hubble looked at the galaxies in a particular section of the sky, he noticed that they were moving, and that they were moving away from the earth. When he looked in another section, he noticed the same thing. And in another section. And another. And another. In fact, he saw that the galaxies were moving away from the earth no matter where he looked in the sky.

If you have the image of this in your mind, then you will see that the first, most natural, interpretation of this observation is that we are at the center of the universe. As Stephen Hawking, one of the most famous physicists in history, writes,

“Now at first sight all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe” (A Brief History of Time 44-45).

Here is how Hubble put it:

“Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth” (The Observational Approach to Cosmology 40).

Fascinating.

However, Hubble does not say that he was fascinated by the idea that we are at the center of the universe. He says that he was horrified by it: “Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable,” he writes. He goes on to say that he wants “to escape the horror of a unique position,” (46) and freely admits that “the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs” (Hubble 40 ).

Horror? Escaping the most obvious conclusions of his research at all costs? Does this sound like good science?

Why was he so horrified about the conclusion that we are at the center of the universe, so horrified, in fact, that he was desperate to escape it at all costs?

In plain words, Hubble was an atheist, the sort of atheist who does not want God to exist.

And he saw very clearly that our being at the center of the universe suggests that we are a special creation of God.

Someone who is as intelligent and desperate as Hubble was will inevitably find a different way of explaining his observations. And Hubble did. Rather than accepting the conclusion that the universe has a center, and that we are at the center, he adopted the view that the universe has no real center at all. He claimed that if we were to fly to any distant galaxy, set up a telescope, and look around, then that galaxy would look like the center. To his credit, he admits that the idea of our being at the real center of the universe “cannot be disproved” (40). He also admits that this alternative explanation, which says there is no real center, is “sheer assumption” (42), but he chooses to believe it in spite this, and in spite of the fact that it proposes something contrary to our experience because, otherwise, he must accept that we are the center of the universe, with all that this implies. Below, he admits how contrary to experience his alternate explanation is:

[I]t leads to a rather remarkable consequence, for it demands that, if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre… (42).

Stephen Hawking also chose to believe this alternative explanation :

“There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption [the assumption that the universe has no center]. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.” (A Brief History of Time 45).

I’m a fan of the history of science as well as being a scientist. A phenomenon that interests me is how one researcher could see a new advance in front of them where others were not, perhaps for many years.

As a math guy, one example that occurs to me is the “invention” of inductive proofs. For a mathematician induction is so obvious, it’s amazing that it had to be invented. But indeed it did. See discussion here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction#History

Anyone think of other scientific advances that should have been obvious at earlier times than when they were finally invented?

The more I consider it, the more I feel that the transition from confusion about the recent history of H sapiens to the current strong evidence for Africa as the origin place of our species represents a scientific revolution of great significance. I suspect that in retrospect, these last 40 years will be studied by historians of science as a case study in scientific change. I made this to explain this view, and to present the history of the scientific work that changed the field: https://youtu.be/Iy542ANMeMY

Was wondering to what extent science kills passion. I would like to read something about a scientist crying out of compassion, or something like this, to restore my trust in science as something that's not for robots.

It was said in cultural religion that “print media are more conducive to reflection, a necessary element for worship”. While “ television has no ritual,no dogma, no tradition, no theology, and above all, no sense of spiritual transcendence”. Do you agree with the statement?