Date disaster in 30 year's time?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iTunes - sync Gmail contacts ?
Next: Bookmark Syncing
From: J. J. Lodder on 8 Mar 2010 16:53 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: > > > > > > > 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. Read back what you wrote. > - 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? You might like to have a look at <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html> It might even amuse you. Jan
From: Rowland McDonnell on 8 Mar 2010 18:53 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: [snip] > Read back what you wrote. Stop being a prat. I know exactly what I wrote, I know exactly what the missing information is, I know exactly what I'm talking about, I'm right in what I say, and you'd see it instantly /assuming you fill in the gaps using the intelligence and information your disposal/. You don't seem to be doing that - why not? Laziness? Malice? Or too much Grolsch? (I like the beer and I like the name of it and the silly bottle tops) Hint: the point is that the engineers who applied thermodynamics to the universe assumed that the universe was a closed system. Thermodynamics can of course be applied to whatever you like, assuming statistical energy interactions are there to be modelled, but you've got to set things up right to get useful answers. > > - 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? > > You might like to have a look at > <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html> > It might even amuse you. Hmm - vaguely interesting, but not surreal enough to give me a real tickle. I've read a lot of things about the end of the universe. An awful lot of them were written in the 1970s by drugged-out hippies. And there's always the final point to spoil it all: "we don't know enough physics to make reliable predictions on such long time scales. " (any cosmic time scale, and we're clueless) 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: J. J. Lodder on 9 Mar 2010 05:52 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > 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. Since the real progress comes from very few, very talented individuals one may well asumme that the population growth is a more important factor in producing them than improveent of the species. Better food and better education also helps a lot, Jan
From: Peter Ceresole on 9 Mar 2010 06:27 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > Since the real progress comes from very few, > very talented individuals one may well asumme > that the population growth is a more important factor > in producing them than improveent of the species. > Better food and better education also helps a lot, All those things, yes. But population growth is unlikely to go very much further. Talented individuals, increased wealth and the ability it gives those individuals to contribute will probably be the main drivers. However, the general (meaning centre of the curve) ability to understand phenomena that we are not equiped, by evolution, to be able to experience, and that don't in fact matter *directly* to anybody at all, seems extremely unlikely to evolve, or to be selected for. And 'directly' matters. Yes, extremely bright women (it's the women who select for breeding) might go for gifted scientists, but the numbers involved, even after many many generations, will still be tiny. And they may select investment bankers instead, for perfectly good reasons. As my international banker brother in law said, long before the latest fuckups, 'Never overestimate the intelligence of bankers'. -- Peter
From: chris on 9 Mar 2010 10:36
On 07/03/10 23:05, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Rowland McDonnell<real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> What's *really* needful is `reliable home computing' - but we have a PC >> industry that for decades has been making deliberately unreliable home >> computing kit in part to drive future sales and in other part because >> `people buy the cheapest and reliable isn't cheapest'. > > And rightfully so. > Any computer will be hopelessly obsolete in five years time. > HDs even more so. Not true. I've a 7yo PC at home running as the main family desktop. It runs all the current desktop software it has on it well. It may be a bit creaky, but it's certainly not obsolete. |