Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 2 Feb 2007 22:40 In article <87abzwhyjl.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu writes: >> In article <87bqkdll8y.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> >> Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> >> >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> >> > >> >> >>The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. >> >> >>This included all of the infrastructure required. >> >> >>The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody >> >> >> has to do that work. >> >> > It also includes the requirement that you think 6 is 3. >> >> > BAH maths is BAD maths. >> >> > It also presumes that Szil�rd, Teller, Einstein and Oppenheimer, >> >> > had no knowledge before they started working on the projects. >> >> >> >> Why didn't you simply include the entire history of mankind >> >> and start with "Adam" then" >> > >> >Because all of the above had were in America, and had some >> >part >> > >> >> Einstein *never* worked on the bomb project. His input was >> >> limited to sending a letter at Szilard's request. >> > >> >And by doing so he validated the theories underpinning the >> >work. Theories come before practice. >> >> Ahh, so that's why James Watt had to wait for thermodynamics before >> developing his steam engine. > >That straw man ought to be below someone posting from a .edu address. >If it expands, it will pushes, and if we can trap it so it >can only push in one direction, and we can use part of that >push to cause the mechanism to reset is a _theory_. It does not >require knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics. > Aha. And what was required was the knowledge that fission reaction is possible, that it is exotermic and that it produces neutrons which can generate further fissions. All of this knowledge came from experiment, not theory. So, as you see, theory doesn't always come before practice. In fact, quite often it doesn't. >So your straw man is self-quenching - congratulations. > >And, just for reference, you're history is incorrect, it wasn't >Watt. Hmmm, .edu's ain't what they used to be. It wouldn't matter in the least if it was Kurtzonoguvlo, for the above. The point being, theory often doesn't come before practice. > >> > Without that input from >> >him, the research may well not have got underway in 1939. >> > >> There was no input from relativity required for this research. > >Do I mention relativity? If so, where? Come on, cite me - message >id and line. Cite or retract. See some 20 or so lines above _______________________________________________________ >> >> Einstein *never* worked on the bomb project. His input was >> >> limited to sending a letter at Szilard's request. >> > >> >And by doing so he validated the theories underpinning the >> >work. Theories come before practice. > ___________________________________________________________ The second sentence are your words. Now, what theories did you have in mind, if not relativity? > >So, are you studying strawmanology at Chicago? You're gonna get >a starred first at this rate. He was a name. His contribution >was his signiture. That's right. So, what does this has to do with "...validated the theories...". > >And, I suspect that his knowledge of mass-energy equivalence >might have been one of the reasons why he was considered >to have a something relevant to say. > Hardly. The reason he was considered was the he was possibly the only physicist whose name meant something to non-physicists. >> >> The rest of them, including the important work done by >> >> Wheeler's group at Princeton and Bohr, started with the >> >> Manhattan Project. The problems to be solved were not >> >> whether or not a bomb could work, but actually making it >> >> work, and a contingent trying to figure out whether or not >> >> once started a chain reaction wouldn't extend to the entire >> >> planet. >> > >> >Wrong. The US-based research got underway in 1939. >> > >> Only small potatoes research. The real effort started by end of 1941. > >OK, so does small = zero in uchicago.edu. Did I say "small = zero"? Only "small ~ zero". > Jesus, don't ever take up >teaching maths. Or even trying to learn it! > Most entertaining:-) >> >> > Weird, as Szil�rd was researching the matter at about the same >> >> > time as the Erm�chtigungsgesetz was kicking in (but not publishing >> >> > his work for that very reason). >> >> >> >> Szilard and others were trying to keep up with what the Germans >> >> were doing in their nuclear program. We sent a mission to >> >> destroy Germany's heavy water facility in Norway. >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage >> > >> >Irrelevant. Szil�rd's results were from 1933. That alone >> >counters BAH's absurd claim. >> >> Szilard's had no results other than "if such and such may be >> happening, then such and such is possible". These are no results at >> all. No results were possible before the possibility of fission has >> benn discovered, and that was in 1939. > >No, they're workable theories. They are not theories *at all". Of course, with your ignorance of physics you wouldn't know the difference. > As I said, theories before practice. That's good science. > I would suggest to you learning some science before wasting bandwidth. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: mmeron on 2 Feb 2007 22:46 In article <8764akhygi.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu writes: >> In article <87ps8tk0q7.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> >> Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> >> >> > You are wrong. You know very little. All that became declassified >> >> > a decade ago. It all started in 1939. I keep saying this but your >> >> > clue-resistance is just too strong. I don't believe you'll >> >> > ever learn to tell the truth from falsity. >> >> >> >> No substantiation = bullshit >> > >> >Here's one claim of yours: >> ><<< >> >Nuclear chain reaction wasn't even proved till 1942. So much >> >for your earlier "research." >> >>>> >> >It was proved to be theoretically possible in 1933 by the work >> >of Szil�rd and independently by Curie the same year. The only >> >thing that wasn't known was the critical mass. Heisenberg had >> >the wrong model, Szil�rd and Curie had the right model. >> > >> No, nothing was proven. All there was, was a "flight of fancy" to the >> effect that "*if* there exists a material in which an exotermic >> nuclear reaction is induced by an absorption of neutrons and *if* said >> reaction is accompanied by the emission of more neutrons then were >> needed to induce it in the first place, *then* a release of an >> arbitrary large amount of energy is apriori possile". This is a >> statment which: >> >> 1) Is trivially (one may say, tautologically) true. >> 2) Is utterly useless unless all the ifs pointed were found to be >> true. >> 3) Is also quit euseless since it provides no guidance regarding how >> to find whether said ifs may be true. >> >> And, most important, it is not a proof of anything. > >You seem to have forgotten one critical point. He backed a winner. > So? Before fission was discovered (and, mind you, the discovery wasn't prompted or helped by anything Szilard did) it didn't matter what he backed. After it was discovered, it didn't matter again since nearly everybody else backed the same. The point (I'm reiterating here) is that Szilard didn't prove anything in 1933 or any time prior to the empirical discovery of fission, and that even if you give him the credit for being one of the people who though about such possibility early on, non of his thinking contributed in any way to the discovery, or pointed the way to it. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: unsettled on 2 Feb 2007 23:13 MassiveProng wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:11:52 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: > > >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >> >>>On Fri, 02 Feb 07 14:04:45 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>> >>> >>>>In article <8e65s297p2fs3tfodc3mk1rmqu2phstukv(a)4ax.com>, >>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 07 12:46:52 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>It isn't the burners. It is the computer board in the stove that >>>>>>is bad. >>>>> >>>>>The stove has a clock, a cooking timer, and maybe some thermal probe >>>>>monitoring ports. That isn't a computer. >>>> >>>>It has one board. >>> >>> >>> >>> Which incorporates all the items I listed above. Being a single >>>board STILL does NOT make it a computer. >>> >>> Nice attempt at a sidestep, though. >> >>Your definitions are, to coin a phrase, unique. > > > You're an idiot. I work in the industry. > > It would be termed a micro-controller, at best. > > STILL NOT a computer. > > >>"An electronic device for the storage and processing of information." > > > A calculator would fit the definition. It isn't a computer either. > It IS a calculator. > > The controller in an oven is a micro-controller, nothing more. > > The consumer device has to have Windows CE or the like on it, and > have a user interface with a gui to BE a computer. Otherwise, it is > no more than fancy CONTROL hardware. > > You really have more people laughing at you than you realize. All your genre. Yes, you need the backup of your peers.
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Feb 2007 07:04 In article <m8q7s2l2na530nmdp44b5n5skasrmc6ms0(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Fri, 02 Feb 07 16:47:17 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <mjd6s2dfqhcfoni7hf6tnlhaq4l0ceho8d(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Fri, 02 Feb 07 12:40:44 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>>>You people sure seem to have to think in absolutes. >>> >>> Like you and your stove. >> >>I would have been superstitious about the stove, except another >>bit god I know can't use his modem when his stove is plugged in. >> > > If he is on a modem, he is hardly anything even close to a "bit >god". Then you've never met one. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Feb 2007 07:06
In article <87lkjggic8.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> Saddam broke a long tradition which was Arab didn't attack Arab. >> I think this is going to be viewed as a crucial point in world >> history. > >Which event are you referring to here? Which particular Arabs >did he attack and when? (It's not obvious from the context.) When Saddam tried to annex Kuwait. /BAH |