|back to main board||collapse thread|
|If I remember right (13/07/14 15:49:06)||Reply|
Natural phenomena are there - either well-known or waiting to be discovered (or, as with commonplace phenomena:) named (because Newton or Galilei surely did not invent gravity).
I'd say that designing a rotary magnetic field AC electric motor or a high-voltage generating coil are inventions rather than discoveries.
The empiricists - like David Hume - saaid you cannot really know anything about the world because (IIRC) you're at the mercy of your senses or instruments.
So there were the analytical sciences
Immanuel Kant gave a solution to it, and Pirsig delves upon it in the Motorcycle book.
Ah yes - why struggle with memory when I can link to Wikipedia?
|Re: If I remember right (13/07/14 19:24:50)||Reply|
"I'd say that designing a rotary magnetic field AC electric motor or a high-voltage generating coil are inventions rather than discoveries."
of course they are :)
just.. before any invention must have been some form of its discovery,
its possibility, if you like.
once we have discovered, not invented, say explosive fuel, only then (from this "relative" perspective of course) can we give full rein to our "whims" (like say inventing a five cycle/wheel motor/car or something)
to boot, even in this process we are experimenting and finding something new as we go rather than "inventing".
the specific thing with tesla, however, is that the whole "nation" is, methinks, still convinced that its him who *invented* not ac motor or something but no less than electrical current itself :))
overall i really appreciate very much all you say here, specially that we/science are/is "at the mercy of its instruments", yes!
thanks and come back soon :)
|Re: If I remember right (14/07/14 13:57:49)||Reply|
no bullshit, really.
i'm aware, myself, I should've been much more pedantic here..
but my intention was just to, so to speak, put forth the "idea", rather than the facts.
(i see it, btw, I wasn't completely correct describing that thing even technically, either, sorry)
you "got" me :)
but never mind, the idea is still out, that some "patriots" may always see even discovery of radio waves as "invention" :)
thanks again and kind regards
|i thought no more my posts here.. (15/07/14 16:08:18)||Reply|
but whenever i fracking open my mouth i feel i somehow.. "lose" (hence must "repair" :)
namely, and in all honesty, now i don't think we can tell or proove for sure the line between when it's (about) 'discovering' something and when it's about 'inventing' it.
we can get even very partial about it probably, but personally i still would prefer it to be "neither this nor that" for sure..
(anyway i'm not saying what it really is or could be because I don't know..)
(all) this may sound "crazy," i know, but..
be all well :)
|Re: i thought no more my posts here.. (15/07/14 21:11:06)||Reply|
There are no infallible people around here.
|thanks e (16/07/14 17:05:44)||Reply|
|Re: i thought no more my posts here.. (16/07/14 17:52:53)||Reply|
"The exclamation 'Eureka!' is famously attributed to the ancient Greek scholar Archimedes. He reportedly proclaimed "Eureka!" when he stepped into a bath and noticed that the water level rose—he suddenly understood that the volume of water displaced must be equal to the volume of the part of his body he had submerged."
a bit more detailed
"The most widely known anecdote about Archimedes tells of how he invented a method for determining the volume of an object with an irregular shape."
" According to Vitruvius, a votive crown for a temple had been made for King Hiero II, who had supplied the pure gold to be used, and Archimedes was asked to determine whether some silver had been substituted by the dishonest goldsmith. Archimedes had to solve the problem without damaging the crown, so he could not melt it down into a regularly shaped body in order to calculate its density. While taking a bath, he noticed that the level of the water in the tub rose as he got in, and realized that this effect could be used to determine the volume of the crown. For practical purposes water is incompressible, so the submerged crown would displace an amount of water equal to its own volume. By dividing the mass of the crown by the volume of water displaced, the density of the crown could be obtained. This density would be lower than that of gold if cheaper and less dense metals had been added. Archimedes then took to the streets naked, so excited by his discovery that he had forgotten to dress, crying "Eureka!" (Greek: "εὕρηκα!," meaning "I have found it!"). The test was conducted successfully, proving that silver had indeed been mixed in."
I think he also couldnt "tell or proove for sure the line" :)
|yea (n/t) (17/07/14 06:57:33)||Reply|
|Re: Re: i thought no more my posts here.. (17/07/14 07:32:42)||Reply|
yours really a great, analytic mind !
let's not forget however,
we already have/had "it", around us :)
(the water, the bath, the iron, whatever)
'it' could be, could be,.. "overlapping".. hidden.. with
or maybe not ;)
thanks very much again
|still.. :) (20/07/14 22:53:48)||Reply|
(being attributed to tesla; and being the "father" to all subsequent inventions)
is, still, by no means an invention
but "just" a find, discovery.
it can't be an invention.
no, even if he'd imagined it, beforehand (which I doubt, btw)
(because the other things involved there, like say magnetic field, *as such*, being out of his control, only made it at all possible)
(don't) think about it
feel it :)
seems that "the nation" is still
hardly was 'he' wrong about himself.
(and hardly could me be that "bad" myself ;)
|Re: still.. :) (21/07/14 14:33:51)||Reply|
that fact or whatever, that an (electro)magnet rotating in between three live wires, simplistically speaking, is
'property' (of 'something')
rather than an invention.
can it get something else/more is of course "anybodies guess" ;)
(but anyway i am not sure that i, we, "need"ed this "shit" any more :)
so, my side, done.
kind greets again
|Re: Re: still.. :) (21/07/14 14:46:36)||Reply|
but frack it :)
|Re: still.. :) (31/07/14 10:48:05)||Reply|
IMHO this is an example of "synthetic a priori".
|Re: Re: still.. :) (01/08/14 20:59:46)||Reply|
your interpretation of that (like mine too, maybe ;) is nothing but
anyway, first was many things, around him, or us
didn't we say we preferred something else to philosophy :)
|Re: Re: Re: still.. :) (01/08/14 21:15:53)||Reply|
do you mind me saying, instead, it is/was *partly* a shear invention too ;)
|giving ground further (02/08/14 06:39:32)||Reply|
so, in my 'final' opinion, i don't think that one should ever feel need (unlike myself :) to reason, "speak up" of or post on things being too substantial or something
(although, you know, there are some other instances or things that i certainly "couldn't" negotiate about this easily :)
|This board has been visited 487035 times||Current time is 23/02/19 01:03:47|