The End of the World?

[pedantic]

When a scientist says destroying the world is "improbable", he means it's about as improbable as all the molecules in a hostess' undergarments leaping one foot simultaneously to the left in accordance with the theory of indeterminacy. What would colloquially be called "impossible".

 

Given that 'how many molecules just jumped left' monitors are not exactly readily available, and that there is probably a law somewhere preventing air hostesses being fitted with such a device, I find your argument entirely flawed. And at the very least, totally unsubstantiated.

 

Latter day scientists and the medical profession both thought the best way to treat the common cold was to slash a persons body, cover them in leeches, and then proceeed to randomly electrocute them. If modern day scientists were conclusively certain of their current theories, surely they'd not need to conduct any further experiments. We all like to justifiably fiddle until it goes bang .. LOL.

[Tchos]

I don't think you understand. You would not need a monitor to see that the undergarments had spontaneously teleported a foot to the left. The molecules are what the undergarments are made of, you see. It's possible it could happen, but highly unlikely. Just like creating a black hole. It's an illustration that I borrowed from Douglas Adams to illustrate what magnitude of "unlikely" we're talking about.

 

Also, "latter day" means current, or recent.

[pedantic]

I don't think you understand. You would not need a monitor to see that the undergarments had spontaneously teleported a foot to the left. The molecules are what the undergarments are made of, you see. It's possible it could happen, but highly unlikely. Just like creating a black hole.

 

Also, "latter day" means current, or recent.

 

 

Indeed, recent, 19th century to be precise. Did you ever view 'A Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy'?

The part where an entire fleet of spacecraft inadvertantly enter a canine eternity? FYI Our retina cannot discern molecules, if they could - I'm sure we'd all creep around totally petrified. :biggrin:

[Tchos]

Yes, in fact the bit about the undergarments is from the Hitch-hiker's Guide.

 

I don't know how much clearer I could possibly make it about the molecules.

[pedantic]

In chemistry, a molecule is defined as a sufficiently stable electrically neutral group of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by very strong chemical bonds. It can also be defined as a unit of two or more atoms held together by covalent bonds. Molecules are distinguished from polyatomic ions in this strict sense. In organic chemistry and biochemistry, the term molecule is used less strictly and also is applied to charged organic molecules and biomolecules. However, simply calling them 'undergarments' is a little demeaning don't you think? I'm going fishing! :mellow:

[Tchos]

I'll state it in the most elementary terms I can. If one says "all the molecules of [x]", it means "[x]", because [x] is made entirely of molecules (and below that, atoms, and below that, subatomic particles). I would like to believe you've been joking in your entire misunderstanding of this simple metaphor. Your user name would certainly be appropriate. Enjoy your fishing.

[pedantic]

LOLZ .. hell yes. I sent you a PM ages ago Tchos. :biggrin:

[Tchos]

So I imagine the fishing you enjoy most is...trawling?