Register to reply

Pros and cons of the science -physics

by youngscientist
Tags: cons, physics, pros, science
Share this thread:
youngscientist
#1
Jan10-06, 12:35 PM
P: n/a
hi i'd like to know if there are any cons in the physics developments. i mean people made an atom bomb and it's definitely a disadvantage. are there any more disadvantages which were made by the physics developments?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Bees able to spot which flowers offer best rewards before landing
Classic Lewis Carroll character inspires new ecological model
When cooperation counts: Researchers find sperm benefit from grouping together in mice
zoobyshoe
#2
Jan10-06, 12:41 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,625
Quote Quote by youngscientist
hi i'd like to know if there are any cons in the physics developments. i mean people made an atom bomb and it's definitely a disadvantage. are there any more disadvantages which were made by the physics developments?
The telephone. It is used by criminals to coordinate their criminal actions all the time.
G01
#3
Jan10-06, 12:48 PM
HW Helper
G01's Avatar
P: 2,688
Computers-Hackers Use those all the time.

The sun. The energy from the fusion inside the sun is used to form cancer cells.....horrible.

Point is.....anything can be used in good or bad ways. Nuclear power is good, nuclear bombs bad. Computers can be used for good or bad too. It has nothing to do with the science of physics itself but how people apply the science.

Pengwuino
#4
Jan10-06, 01:01 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Pros and cons of the science -physics

Someone once hit me on the back with a ball. Physics allows us to calculate how fast it hit me. Some might call that a good thing however....

I do dare say that the nuclear bomb was a very good thing. As you can see, WW3 hasn't broken out yet when, if it werent for the development of such a powerful weapon, it would have probably started before the 1950's came about. India and Pakistan probably would have gone all out again by now if it werent for nukes... but of course north korea is a problem because it probably already has nukes.... guess it just depends who has them.
zoobyshoe
#5
Jan10-06, 01:26 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,625
Nuclear weapons are, at this point, exclusively a bad thing. That won't change till they are used for something everyone's happy about like blowing an asteroid off a collision course with earth or something.

Still, there hasn't been anything meant to be a benefit to mankind that someone hasn't used for ill.
Chi Meson
#6
Jan12-06, 09:21 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Chi Meson's Avatar
P: 1,772
CT scans, MRI, ultrasound, you name it, all those medical applications are sending the global population through the roof!
Mk
#7
Jan12-06, 11:33 PM
P: 2,056
Nuclear bombs are only bad??? What if it kills people that are killing you? Sure, killing is bad, eye-for-an-eye, use love against hate, self-defense...
moose
#8
Jan13-06, 05:37 PM
moose's Avatar
P: 555
Quote Quote by Chi Meson
CT scans, MRI, ultrasound, you name it, all those medical applications are sending the global population through the roof!
This reminds me of someone in my biology class last semester who wanted to be a doctor, and when arguing why genetic screening is bad, she said people would live longer and the population will get too large.... Well, that's exactly what a doctor does, extends lives.....
Pengwuino
#9
Jan13-06, 06:01 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Quote Quote by moose
This reminds me of someone in my biology class last semester who wanted to be a doctor, and when arguing why genetic screening is bad, she said people would live longer and the population will get too large.... Well, that's exactly what a doctor does, extends lives.....
damn you high life expectancy!!!
russ_watters
#10
Jan13-06, 06:21 PM
Mentor
P: 22,243
Quote Quote by zoobyshoe
Nuclear weapons are, at this point, exclusively a bad thing.
That is certainly a debateable point: nuclear weapons did, after all, end WWII and may have prevented WWIII.

Regardless, the A-bomb is a device that is based on physics. Whether it is used to develop technological devices that are good or bad has nothing to do with whether the physics itself is good or bad. Physics is just knowledge - it cannot in and of itself be a bad thing.
Ivan Seeking
#11
Jan13-06, 06:38 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
The affect of physics on the human condition goes much deeper than technological contributions. It has been a part of the process of enlightenment that pulled us out of the dark ages, and that has helped to establish the paradigms of modern thought. Today, for example, if everyone within a certain radius of an epicenter becomes ill, we expect that the problem is the air or the water; not evil spirits. When my washing machine fails, I don't blame demons, I blame metal fatigue, and so does any other average person, more or less. We all expect physical cause and effect explanations for most of everyday life.

We also assume that we can predict the behavior of the world around us, and not that we live at the mercy of uknowable forces. For example, consider the reaction that one might get in Salem, Mass, in the 1690s, were one to predict the weather. It would not be believed to be possible. It wouldn't have been expected. Now, instead, for example, on one occasion I had to to argue the point that "Back To The Future" style hover boards don't really exist, and even that I know for a fact that they don't sell them at Wal Mart! And consider how mad some people get when told that time travel might not be possible. Now I call that a change in attitude!!!

In a sense, when one considers the potential ramifications of a grand unified theory of physics, and with suggestions like those of time machines from General Relativity, and Heim's [hyperspace] gravitophoton drive, we see a subtle kind of hopeful belief that we can be masters of the universe - like the Q on Star Trek. in fact how many times do we see this theme in Science Fiction - that we will evolve to be some kind of superhumans.

I see all of this as a direct consequence of the last four-hundred years of physics. It has changed not only how we see ourselves, it even defines how we view the future of humanity.
zoobyshoe
#12
Jan13-06, 07:04 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,625
Quote Quote by russ_watters
That is certainly a debateable point: nuclear weapons did, after all, end WWII and may have prevented WWIII.
They are, at this point, only a bad thing because they are being sought as first strike weapons by irresponsible parties. Saddam was, at some point, trying to acquire them and said publically once or twice if he had them he'd drop one on Israel first thing. I don't trust rogue dictators like him, or the current leader of North Korea, or wealthy terrorists like Bin Laden, or anyone similar who might come along to worry about M.A.D. if they happen to get hold of one.
Regardless, the A-bomb is a device that is based on physics. Whether it is used to develop technological devices that are good or bad has nothing to do with whether the physics itself is good or bad. Physics is just knowledge - it cannot in and of itself be a bad thing.
It should be clear from my first post I'm not blaming physics or physicists for the bomb.
ComputerGeek
#13
Jan14-06, 02:00 AM
P: 534
Quote Quote by youngscientist
hi i'd like to know if there are any cons in the physics developments. i mean people made an atom bomb and it's definitely a disadvantage. are there any more disadvantages which were made by the physics developments?
The knife is a pretty awful use of an inclined plane :-)
Pengwuino
#14
Jan14-06, 02:02 AM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Quote Quote by ComputerGeek
The knife is a pretty awful use of an inclined plane :-)


Drowning people is also an aweful use of bernoulli's principle
ComputerGeek
#15
Jan14-06, 02:04 AM
P: 534
Quote Quote by zoobyshoe
They are, at this point, only a bad thing because they are being sought as first strike weapons by irresponsible parties. Saddam was, at some point, trying to acquire them and said publically once or twice if he had them he'd drop one on Israel first thing. I don't trust rogue dictators like him, or the current leader of North Korea, or wealthy terrorists like Bin Laden, or anyone similar who might come along to worry about M.A.D. if they happen to get hold of one.
It should be clear from my first post I'm not blaming physics or physicists for the bomb.
Bush (or those around him) would fall into that group of folks who just don't care about MAD (quickens judgement day and all)
Pengwuino
#16
Jan14-06, 02:05 AM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Quote Quote by ComputerGeek
Bush (or those around him) would fall into that group of folks who just don't care about MAD (quickens judgement day and all)
Well they better hurry up and actually nuke someone, they only have 3 years left to get the job done.
ComputerGeek
#17
Jan14-06, 02:09 AM
P: 534
Quote Quote by Pengwuino
Well they better hurry up and actually nuke someone, they only have 3 years left to get the job done.
So should Kim So Ill and well Sadam lost out on that boat as well.

point is, it is the intentions, not the act that allows us to categorize them.
Gokul43201
#18
Jan14-06, 01:20 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
Posts #13 and #14 make pretty awful use of physics too.

A knife is a wedge and people must thank Archimedes (not Bernoulli) for drowning.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
C++ Compiler Pros & Cons Programming & Computer Science 1
The pros and cons of Gedankenexperimente General Discussion 11
The pros and cons of global warming; i.e. GCC Current Events 10
Linux: Pros and Cons Computing & Technology 21
Cloning human-pros and cons General Discussion 19