TED Community » robert hensley

More About Me

An idea worth spreading

Don't drink the Kool-aid.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +4.80 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: The teachers' salary is the key of increasing the education quality?

  Jul 27 2012: But isn't pay a way of compensating for working conditions, and increasing retention?
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: The teachers' salary is the key of increasing the education quality?

  Jul 27 2012: The problem is that some of the brightest and most qualified people to be teachers, are not attracted to teaching because they could use their intellect to do something that is more logical with regard to sending their children to college, buying a house, and getting other things they may want and/or need. I agree that a great teacher normally loves what they do, but why would that also mean they shouldn’t be better compensated for doing the job that very well may be the most important to our countries future.

• A reply on Conversation: If the universe is expanding - what is it expanding into?

  Jul 26 2012: Very true, one day we may know the numbers right down to the nearest second. One neat thing about Hubble's experiment was even at the time it was well known that the earth was older than that, so Hubble got quite a lot of grief. But today the principle is known as "Hubble's Law" :-)

• A reply on Conversation: If the universe is expanding - what is it expanding into?

  Jul 26 2012: " Back in the 40's Hubble said the universe was 2 billion years old. Now the number is 14+ billion years."
  
  
  Hubble's math was right, his idea was right, and his data was right, but his plot wrong because he did not have a "standard candle". Today astronomers have been able to set standard candles with supernova, which is how we now know why Hubble was wrong and also why the current numbers are much more accurate.

• A reply on Conversation: How old is planet Earth?

  Jul 24 2012: *Added to be a bit more clear.
  
  "We can mess about with our DNA etc in the same way that a mechanic can change a plug. But that same mechanic could not make a car from scratch. "
  
  Not yet, but we get closer every day. It doesn't take one person/discipline to build a car. People have to mine the ore, set the steel, make the plastics, manufacture the electronics, make the tools, design them, be educated on how to put them together, know how combustion works, know how electronics works, and so on. With chemistry you don't have to teach it how to work, it all just functions according to the laws of physics. Just think about the problems people have with the very basic two body problems in physics with a frictionless slope an a massless pulley, now try real problems.
  
  None of this is any small task, and not all of it even pans out. But when we do finally have enough facts/supporting evidence, repeatable experiments, with verifiable data we can then make something a theory.
  
  In order to understand all of this we have to have people interested in science, then we have to have knowledge to build on. This means we need brilliant people to do more than just ask question they need to develop hypothesis (make claims, not just leave open ended questions), figure out how to test them, and then we need the funding to design and run the experiments. Then we need the time to do them, analyze the data we get, pass it around to be looked at, and figure out how to apply it to make it work for us.
  
  Remember, we are dealing with billions of years of chemical recombinations. Over that time it has become very complex because one chemical reacted with another to form a molecule , that molecule into another, into another (etc.) for billions of year. "Reverse engineering" that, is a long and complex problem. But, not having all of the answers (yet) does not open the explanation to a millennia old myth. "Not a chance" you say -- well, we can make matter now, which we couldn't do a month ago.

• A reply on Conversation: How old is planet Earth?

  Jul 24 2012: "You are forgetting that the data would not fit with rapid movement of the plates."
  
  This is actually the area their geophysicist John Baumgardner has been avidly working on. And, in the publications that he has in the journals "science" and "nature", he has basically confirmed that the billion year time scales are well within standard deviation, and are accurate (not the intention of his publications I'm pretty sure).

• A reply on Conversation: How old is planet Earth?

  Jul 24 2012: Peter,
  
  "We cannot make a blade of grass grow without acquiring a seed."
  
  If you would like to look at it this way, all life on earth comes from the principles of a seed. We don't call all of them "seeds", but some life comes from seeds that isn't "grass". So we can use seeds to make stuff other than grass, why is that? DNA.
  
  "We cannot prevent disease & death"
  
  We can prevent some diseases. Once we have a scientific understanding of something we can apply it to understanding how to change it. I see no reason (yet) that we will not someday be able to prevent death. Look at crocodiles, they don't die of old age they die from their environment.
  
  "Everything must be explained in terms of material."
  
  This statement is deceptive. Everything has an explanation, but the word material is not necessarily true. But this goes down to quantum physics and back to the formation of our universe. On the topic of evolution, it is a "material" explanation. On the topic of quantum physics, we now know how matter can come into existence with the finding of the Higgs boson (this also talks about the formation of the universe since we know now there is a Higgs field).
  
  "but deny the one non-material dimension that most of us sense in one way or another."
  
  Sense with what? What sense organ do you have that I don't?
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: did the big bang also create God?

  Jul 23 2012: Nothing is when everything is somewhere else, like you said: (+1) + (-1) = 0 = nothing, or A + B + C + n = 0 = nothing.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: did the big bang also create God?

  Jul 23 2012: Religion is not science, and until religious beliefs become parallel to scientific knowledge without trying to jumble the facts around to fit their beliefs, religion should stay separate. But, that does not mean that religious people cannot be good scientists, just look at Ken Miller, the other 40% of the scientific community, and the other 7% of the advanced scientific community. But, since religion seems to conflict with science, a religious person doing science has to learn to set aside their religious beliefs and have faith that the truth will prevail.
  
  Religion has to realize that science isn't the enemy but instead their best friend, because it is their best chance at ever proving God. If God doesn't exist then there will be nothing that is explained with God that can't be explained with something else. But, if God does exist science will find him some day.
  
  My 2 cents.
  
  *edit BTW I would love to see them come back together, but it's going to take some creative thinking on science's part, and some evolution on religion's part (puns intended). In short science has to learn to think like non- scientists in order to communicate in a way that can be understood and resonates with people, and religion needs to learn the importance of evidence and accuracy.

• A reply on Conversation: did the big bang also create God?

  Jul 23 2012: “but a trapeze is also a geometrical figure and a trapeze has no more than two right angles therefore a square has no more than two right angles ........ it's just unbelievable , I just don't have words to .... unbelievable !!!!! Everything else you said rest upon this nonsense , I won't waste my time to comment them , it's all over for me . Good bye . You scared me .”
  
  I understand that you don’t understand how it works now, but if you read it over a few times I’m sure you would understand it. Obviously you are having this trouble understanding how it works, and when you get down to it, it is very complex. In order to understand it you might have to sit down an think about it for a while, and maybe even read some articles, books, and/or research papers; but everything I said is true. I understand that my example is confusing to you, but when you sit down and let it sink in, it will all make sense. Maybe some later day you will understand it when you've put more time into it.
  
  You said this in reply to Ob1 with respect to needing evidence, "I agree with you on your suggestion generally but not in the case of God ." It's obvious that you don't care about the value of and differences between evidence, you sir are the scary one. It's people like this that don't have standards for or understand the importance of evidence and bomb buildings in the name of God. Good bye to you too.