Date disaster in 30 year's time?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iTunes - sync Gmail contacts ?
Next: Bookmark Syncing
From: Peter Ceresole on 8 Mar 2010 04:54 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Very straightforward - and bloody odd, bloody odd indeed. Spooky action > at a distance - Albert didn't like it, and I get spooked by it too. Which is what I meant when I said that it shows that there's a whole layer that we don't understand at all- which is where it gets interesting. -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 8 Mar 2010 11:25 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Very straightforward - and bloody odd, bloody odd indeed. Spooky action > > at a distance - Albert didn't like it, and I get spooked by it too. > > Which is what I meant when I said that it shows that there's a whole > layer that we don't understand at all- which is where it gets > interesting. <puzzled> No, that doesn't show there's a whole layer we don't understand. It hints that there might be - and better bloody well had be if we want it to make any damned /sense/ - but it's other stuff that makes it plainer there's `things beyond'. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 8 Mar 2010 11:58 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > > > whisky-dave <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "J. J. Lodder" <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalie: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > >> No-one understands time, not yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because there is nothing to understand. > > > > > > > > > > > > yes there is, the idea that time only travels in one direction. > > > > > > > > > > Irreversibility is well understood. > > > > > > > > <howls of laughter as Rowland rolls around on the floor> > > > > > > > > Crazy Dutchman. > > > > > > > > Have another Grolsch. > > > > > > It's not my fault that you don't know what you are talking about. > > > > > > > Engineers worked out entropy maths in the 19th century. They /thought/ > > > > they had it understood. > > > > > > That's thermodynamics. And they -did- understand that. > > > > But they applied it to the entire universe - which is not necessarily > > valid, since it's not certain the universe is a thermodynamically closed > > system. > > > > That was one of their mistakes. > > > > So are you still sure I know not what I speak of? > > Yes. Your mistake is to assume that thermodynamics > applies to closed systems only. [snip] Thus spake the man who accused *ME* of failure to understand what I'm talking about... The fact that your ignorance is so great you can accuse me of making that error is quite something. I have not made the error of which you accuse me. - and I do wish you'd lay off the personal niggling (sometimes abuse) you come out with every time you allege an error on my part. Shall I sing you the song of the heat death of the universe and how it is that it's just a myth brought about by the mis-application of a theory? Which error was made by assuming a closed system. .... and Jan, just lay off the insults-by-reflex any time you find your ideas contradicted, eh? Now, I leave the stage. If you've any sense, you'll make it exeunt omnes. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Peter Ceresole on 8 Mar 2010 12:06 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > <puzzled> No, that doesn't show there's a whole layer we don't > understand. > > It hints that there might be - and better bloody well had be if we want > it to make any damned /sense/ - but it's other stuff that makes it > plainer there's `things beyond'. It's one of the things that points that way. Of course there are others, like the problems with gravitation (modified Newton or dark matter?) and supersymmetry... But to me that's the most obvious one. I wasn't being exclusive. As I said, given the way our brains evolved, and our experiencing of the world through our rather narrow senses, it's possible that we never will explain it. Hell, I can't make myself understand Word, so what chance do I have with the universe? Doing the maths is a small step on the road, but it's not understanding by a long way. After all, if you do the maths you get things like string theory. Which may be onto something, or may be the most total load of nonsense. The point about string theory being that's it's so far totally unverifiable. Tricky then and not really science. -- Peter
From: Peter Ceresole on 8 Mar 2010 12:51
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > But `we' - you and I - will die centuries before any deep understanding > could be gained. And by the time the deep understanding is possible of > conception in principle (on account of the maths now describing the > cosmic all), the human race will have evolved. Not really very interesting; 4 million years to get to where we are, a lot longer if you are following the evolution of the brain. And the pressures to evolve in the direction of understanding the nature of the universe are peewee compared to those that shaped our minds so far. I doubt that that kind of evolution is going to happen. -- Peter |