Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 5 Feb 2007 13:30 In article <qgfes25qpuu9cnhjaaplin7pe21oaksvdm(a)4ax.com>, George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> writes: >On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:46:55 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >>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. > >I certainly agree with Mr. Meron's assertion that Szilard's >theoretical work was in no way "proof" of fission, but it may go too >far to state that the discovery was not helped by anything Szilard >did. Many experimental scientists are influenced in their choice of >reserach topic by the "hot" theoretical work of the day (and vice >versa). I'm not an expert on the history of physics, so I'll pose the >question: would Meittner and Hahn have done the first fission >experiments in 1938 in the absence of Szilard's theoretical work? Yes. In fact, Szilard's work had no influence whatsoever on what they did. > If >one dates the proof to Fermi, one can similarly ask whether he would >have been able to get the resources to build the first experimental >reactor in 1942 without Szilard's and Meittner's work. Without Szilard's, yes, for sure. > My strong suspicion is that these discoveries would have been made > eventually, but that Szilard's work hastened them by pointing out the > possibility in theory. No, not in the least. You should read the first part of "The making of the atomic bomb" to get the story. What gave the push to Fermi's, Hahn's, Meittner's and many others research was the discovery of the neutron, by Chadwick (which discovery preceded any of Szilard's musings about applications). Once discovered, neutrons became the hot new toy for physicists everywhere, due to their ability to induce nuclear transmutations. So, anybody who could lay his hands on an alpha source (and these were pretty plentiful by then) was generating neutrons and bombarding anything that came to mind, to see if something interesting happens. This was the hottest topic in experimental physics in the mid and late 30s and, I'll reiterate, it had ***nothing*** to do with anything Szilard wrote. And, nobody was pursuing fission, either, just transmutations. Fission was not on anybody's mind, to the point that it went unrecognized for quite a while when it occured. That's the background to Hahn's and Meittner's work. This work, in turn, is the background to Fermi's reactor. Szilard doesn't figure in this. This is not to say that Szilard didn't play and important role but this role only began *after* fission was discovered, not before, and it was more "political" than scientific. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 13:36 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45C739A7.2021E282(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Islam is now ~1400 years old. We can look at what >>>>>Christianity was doing about the year 1400. Much of >>>>>what was going on wasn't very pretty. >>>> >>>>You may to be interested to know that I concur with the view that the >>>>behaviour of religions is related to their age too. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Luther was born in 1483. If the evolution of Islam tracks that of >>>>>Christianity at all, their great reformer should be coming along any >>>>>time >>>>>now. The conditions happen to be ripe. Funny how that works. >>>> >>>>Yes. I've been thinking that it's time for some kind of 'reform Islam' >>>>that >>>>takes them into a modern forward-thinking technological era instead of a >>> >>>regressive >>> >>>>agrarian tribal/fuedal one. >>> >>>And that is exactly what I've been talking about for 15,000 posts. >> >>You've been doing a jolly fine job of hiding it ! Those riddles you're so >>fond of >>obviously don't help. >> >> >> >>>What we are seeing is the struggle between modernization and >>>keeping things at the status quo. Those who do not want to change >>>are trying to destroy the cause of those who want to mondernize. >>> >>>Modernization means including Western civilization's progress. >>> >>>Until WWI and the final breakup of the Ottoman Empire, there was >>>no WEstern civilization influcence to tempt most Muslims. Even >>>those who were the first embassadors to Europe in the late >>>1800s could not understand most of the European lifestyle. >>>There was no way they could send back explanations for certain >>>things like entertainment, science, art and medicine. >> >>I'm increasingly convinced that many Muslims, even those living in the >>west now >>here in fact, still don't fully understand our culture actually. That may >>explain >>why they react so badly to bits of it. I suspect they may take bits of it >>too >>'literally'. See the business about the Dutch 'cartoons' for example. > > > Danish :-) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy > > >>The other thing is that I think they're unused to thinking for themselves >>as much >>as we do. > > > Blimey, does this include Muslims who were born in the UK? What about people > from other religions who convert to Islam? Let me ask you a simple question. Can you conceive of *any* literate, well read, intelligent and well adjusted person converting to Islam?
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 13:47 "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:87ps8o8rum.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> Stupid Phil Carmody lied when he wrote: >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> > >> >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >>>>The heads of religion decide what people can eat, wear, use, >> >>>>and make. They have been in control from the start of Islam. >> >>> >> >>> Your two sentences are no more applicable to "Islam" than any >> >>> other religion. >> >> >> >>Christianity doesn't concern itself about eating nor sanitary habits. >> >>It doesn't establish a lifestyle nor daily habits as part of its >> >>catecism. >> > So Christianity has never concerned itself with fasting and >> > abstinence? Odd, as such things seems to crop up in the decisions of >> > the Council of Jerusalem, and in the synoptic gospels. >> >> BAH Christianity doesn't concern itself >> Lying Phil Christianity has never concerned itself > > They're still, right here, in 2007, in the religion's tracts > in black and white. Or does your Christian bible not have > a New Testament in it? Did you tear that bit up in order to > make a nest for winter, or something? > > Find me the bit in the Catholic bible that says that you are > permitted to dismiss the book of Matthew, for instance. > > I'm sure for a towering intellect such as yourself, that's a > simple challenge. Now go away and don't post codswallop to > usenet until you find the appropriate papal edict. If we include un-repealed papal bulls, then Christianity really is full of bull's hit.
From: Phil Carmody on 5 Feb 2007 16:23 unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > Phil Carmody wrote: > > So you're saying that the ancient tracts don't matter, then? > > If so, why did you start this subthread by posting references to a > > document 1200 years old? > > Matters to some, not to others. Islam doesn't seem to > evolve because "Allah wrote the Koran and handed it to > Mohammed, It is not to be interpreted." What's the Koran got to do with this? Is you a bit fick or summin? Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 17:06
"Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:87hcu08fjs.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> Phil Carmody wrote: >> > So you're saying that the ancient tracts don't matter, then? >> > If so, why did you start this subthread by posting references to a >> > document 1200 years old? >> >> Matters to some, not to others. Islam doesn't seem to >> evolve because "Allah wrote the Koran and handed it to >> Mohammed, It is not to be interpreted." > > What's the Koran got to do with this? > As an aside, the same could be said about the Bible. From the wonders of wiki: Christianity regards the Bible, a collection of canonical books in two parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament, as authoritative: written by human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore the inerrant Word of God.[43] (Source 43 reads Catechism of the Catholic Church, Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture (�105-108); Second Helvetic Confession, Of the Holy Scripture Being the True Word of God; Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy) Despite this, Catholicism has evolved. |