Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 12 Oct 2006 09:11 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >That's a pretty extravagant claim. > > Put in your pipe and stuff it. Perhaps you should learn who > I am. And how would that change things ? Why's it such a secret anyway ? Graham
From: Ken Smith on 12 Oct 2006 09:51 In article <g4soi29g67lp55qf8k0r3jfrcso5kv8lmp(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)nosuchplace.org> wrote: >On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:12:58 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >(Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>Yes that is true but they still it seems have a nuke. > > > They were handed the technology. They developed NOTHING on their >own. > > Gaineth Thyself A Clue. So, you agree that they have a nuke. At least there is some progress here. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Spehro Pefhany on 12 Oct 2006 10:10 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:56:12 -0700, the renowned JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > Now, South Vietnam has electricity and TVs and even DVD players and >computers. Do you really, in your wildest dreams, think that they >would be in such a position has the communist regime been able to >overrun the South the way things were going before we bailed out the >French? The entire country became communist in 1975, soon after the American military withdrew in '73, thus marking their independence and the end of their century as a colony of the West. It's still communist from north to south, albeit with some economic liberalization under way in recent decades. AFAIUI, the Ho Chi Minh City area (formerly Saigon) always had more entrepreneurs so it leads in export-oriented enterprises, in much the same way the PRD (Pearl River Delta) area of China leads the northeast, and perhaps as the US west coast leads in the US (seems it never hurts to seperate yourself geographically from the temptation of government power and money and put yourself in proximity with other like-minded individuals). Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: lucasea on 12 Oct 2006 10:07 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:12fri2961usl6qoiqotcc442va44b4q1i3(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:47:25 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:fedri21s4toqia7j4a8o2ejko440n73gp9(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:18:02 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>F = m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999982 * (g-0.000000000016), >>> >>> Ah, gravitational force is independent of distance, as Occam's Razor >>> predicts. That certainly is a useful simplification. >> >>Oops, my mistake. Please answer the same questions as if I had typed it >>right-- >> >>Please explain why Newton chose F = m1 * m2 * g / d^2, when F = >>m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999999982 * (g-0.00000000000016) / >>d^2.000000000013 would have fit the available data just as well. And if >>you're going to put it off to Kepler's law, which is the basis for >>Newton's >>law, then why did Kepler get something so simple, like Period = k * >>radius^1.5? Why didn't he say Period = k * radius^1.50000000000038? >>After >>all, if needless complexification is the norm in science, then he >>shouldn't >>have come up with anything so simple. >> >>Or are you being deliberately obtuse to cling to an untenable position? > > Obtuse? I'm not the one who swore there was no "2" in Newton's law of > gravitation, as you did in the part you snipped. I didn't swear, don't put words in my mouth as a strawman. It was a mistake. I suppose you never admit to making those. > My answer remains, 2 > is fundamentally correct, and Newton did not determine it > experimentally. There's nothing fundamental about it--it's based on Kepler's observation of a 2/3 exponent. Anyway, what about all the other numbers? > Occam's Razor is folklore. It is unproven, proves nothing, cannot > separate good theories from incorrect ones and, if trusted, shuts off > thought. In mathematics, only formal proof validates a theorem; in > physics, only experiment. Being simple isn't enough. Of course it isn't. However, I'm going beyond the data--for any given set of data, there are an infinite number of explanations. How do you choose between them? Of course, one way is to get more data. However, it's not possible to collect an infinite amount of data to disprove all of those possible theories. The other way to select between theories is to choose the simplest, and then look for data to invalidate it. Once you do, then you choose a more complex theory, and repeat the process. However, fundamental to all of this, at each stage, is choosing the simplest theory that fit the data. Ask any experimental scientist, and you'll get laughed out of the room if you tell them that "Ockham's razor is folklore." Oh, and you still haven't answered the question about Newton's equation. There's lots of numbers in there. Why did he choose the ones he did. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 12 Oct 2006 10:11
On 12 Oct 2006 09:02:52 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] >On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:25:59 -0700, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote > in Msg. <uu8ri25d43ms9k07u8ued1dc2rde6fqmru(a)4ax.com> > >> No. See my post above. Given imperfect data, I'd be inclined towards a >> more flexible - more complex - solution to give me wiggle room to >> adjust for the unexpected. > >A scientific theory is not the same as a technical solution to an >engineering problem. > >robert Of course. Someone suggested that Occam's Razor was applicable to both. I was pointing out that it's applicable to neither. John |