Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 13 Oct 2006 11:49 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:l4nti2pqtc7373j18o4dra7ec1adcadtbm(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:05:36 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > (Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>No. In other words, they can load it on a ship. It would be somewhat >>better if their rockets worked just well enough for them to be fooled into >>using them to carry the nuke. They don't so I don't think they would risk >>it. > > > A: Do they even have any ships? NK has lots of ships. Not to mention there are a significant number of cargo ships which fly flags of convenience. > and > > b: If they ever left a port in a ship do you not think at this point > that it wouldn't be immediately sunk? Well they arent sinking NK flagged ships at the moment. Do you think that the US Government will be able to magically track any potential nuclear material? > And that with great precision and ease, btw. Go back to your Ghost Recon game or what ever it is you are learning global politics from.
From: John Larkin on 13 Oct 2006 11:53 On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:33:41 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:30nti295p83eoe5ghkav7ee1rr4frjl5rf(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:02:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>message >>>news:e0gti2djea63mblscpo3qv2poervfjale9(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:38:06 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>>message >>>>>news:72cti2912j48l1b64i0lgonubk0o27hr55(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:18:05 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Simple mental experiments show that m1*m2 works in that form, at >>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>> in the non-relativistic case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hunh??? Tell me about these simple mental experiments. And tell me >>>>>>>why >>>>>>>m1*m2 is any better than m1^1.00000000038 * m2^0.99999999947. >>>>> >>>>>Who says it has to be symmetric? These are, after all, just empirical >>>>>laws >>>>>that explain observed data. Symmetry is an outgrowth of the fact that >>>>>those >>>>>two exponents are the same--there's nothing fundamental that says that >>>>>any >>>>>two bodies of the same mass will exert the same pull on each >>>>>other...that's >>>>>just what the data tell us. What if the data are wrong--what if, to a >>>>>higher degree of precision >>>>> >>>>>Even if I grant symmetry, why is m1*m2 any better than m1^1.0000000038 * >>>>>m2^1.0000000038? >>>> >>>> Hey, we're making progress. Now you accept that the distance between >>>> the masses actually matters, and you seem to agree that the force >>>> isn't affected by whatever names we assign to the objects. >>> >>>And you continue to avoid the real question, using any distraction >>>possible >>>to avoid answering for an untenable position. >>> >>>Eric Lucas >>> >> >> Not so. I've managed to counter three of your statements, namely that >> there's no distance term, that there's no "2" in Newton's equation, >> and the clear implication that the M1 and M2 gains could differ (ie, >> they're asymmetric.) > >You have created three strawmen on what were (IIRC) immediately admitted >errors and you count this as a success? Well, I'm just a simple naive engineer who thinks that it's important that equations be correct. I see now that more enlightened people don't care if they are correct, that it's more important that they be metaphysically acceptable. > >> Fixing one goof per day ain't bad and ain't a distraction. As our next >> step, you could figure out for yourself why the M's aren't >> exponentiated. Why should I do all the work? > >Because this is nothing to do with the line of conversation. You were >asserting that Ockhams Razor had no place in science. Arguing the toss over >an example is simply a distraction because you were wrong. > If OR is a guideline for priotorizing the order in which theories should be tested - do the easiest ones first - then it's common sense, hardly deserving a formal name. If OR says that theories shouldn't have a lot of terms with zero coefficients, ditto. If OR says that the simplest theory is the most likely to be correct, and anybody relies on that, it's wrong and dangerous. That's the usage I see too often and don't like. To say that there's nothing fundamental about symmetry is to question basic axioms of math and physics (maybe a*b is not equal to b*a) and I can't argue about axioms except to say that most of them are axioms because they work. And sometimes 2 is fundamental and just can't be 2.00000001. John
From: John Fields on 13 Oct 2006 12:42 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:45:14 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> > >> >> I mean, I can't recall a single post where you've had anything good >> >> to say about America or Americans, can you? >> > >> >There's precious little left worth saying good about. >> >> --- >> Try. There must be _something_ you like about us or this great big >> beautiful country we live in, no? > >I'm sure it has many redeeming features. --- Have you ever been here? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 13 Oct 2006 13:09 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:djlti2hqssqdhrnuhdbd2lfudhtpta7af2(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:10:19 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > > >>Garden vegetables can make that claim as well :-) >> > Converse with food often, do you? Well, I appear to be conversing with you. > Perhaps you should see a psychologist about that, dumbfuck. Maybe. Are you a figment of my imagination? Probably, I very much doubt any one person could really be as dumb as you, yet apparently still able to breathe.
From: T Wake on 13 Oct 2006 13:22
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:8vcvi2tijgp9ptnmvf4301jpo4vr01p8pa(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:33:41 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:30nti295p83eoe5ghkav7ee1rr4frjl5rf(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:02:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>message >>>>news:e0gti2djea63mblscpo3qv2poervfjale9(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:38:06 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>>>message >>>>>>news:72cti2912j48l1b64i0lgonubk0o27hr55(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:18:05 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Simple mental experiments show that m1*m2 works in that form, at >>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>> in the non-relativistic case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hunh??? Tell me about these simple mental experiments. And tell me >>>>>>>>why >>>>>>>>m1*m2 is any better than m1^1.00000000038 * m2^0.99999999947. >>>>>> >>>>>>Who says it has to be symmetric? These are, after all, just empirical >>>>>>laws >>>>>>that explain observed data. Symmetry is an outgrowth of the fact that >>>>>>those >>>>>>two exponents are the same--there's nothing fundamental that says that >>>>>>any >>>>>>two bodies of the same mass will exert the same pull on each >>>>>>other...that's >>>>>>just what the data tell us. What if the data are wrong--what if, to a >>>>>>higher degree of precision >>>>>> >>>>>>Even if I grant symmetry, why is m1*m2 any better than m1^1.0000000038 >>>>>>* >>>>>>m2^1.0000000038? >>>>> >>>>> Hey, we're making progress. Now you accept that the distance between >>>>> the masses actually matters, and you seem to agree that the force >>>>> isn't affected by whatever names we assign to the objects. >>>> >>>>And you continue to avoid the real question, using any distraction >>>>possible >>>>to avoid answering for an untenable position. >>>> >>>>Eric Lucas >>>> >>> >>> Not so. I've managed to counter three of your statements, namely that >>> there's no distance term, that there's no "2" in Newton's equation, >>> and the clear implication that the M1 and M2 gains could differ (ie, >>> they're asymmetric.) >> >>You have created three strawmen on what were (IIRC) immediately admitted >>errors and you count this as a success? > > Well, I'm just a simple naive engineer who thinks that it's important > that equations be correct. I see now that more enlightened people > don't care if they are correct, that it's more important that they be > metaphysically acceptable. Sorry, make that four straw men. Where did I say it was more important that the equations be "Metaphyisically Acceptable." >> >>> Fixing one goof per day ain't bad and ain't a distraction. As our next >>> step, you could figure out for yourself why the M's aren't >>> exponentiated. Why should I do all the work? >> >>Because this is nothing to do with the line of conversation. You were >>asserting that Ockhams Razor had no place in science. Arguing the toss >>over >>an example is simply a distraction because you were wrong. >> > > If OR is a guideline for priotorizing the order in which theories > should be tested - do the easiest ones first - then it's common sense, > hardly deserving a formal name. But it isn't. Ockhams Razor is common sense though and is hardly deserving a formal name. Scientists like to name things though. > If OR says that theories shouldn't have a lot of terms with zero > coefficients, ditto. But it doesnt. > If OR says that the simplest theory is the most likely to be correct, > and anybody relies on that, it's wrong and dangerous. That's the usage > I see too often and don't like. You misinterpret the idea behind Ockhams Razor and as a result you dismiss it. That makes no sense to me. Speak to people who understand the science and learn how it is properly used. Then you can see if you "agree" with it or not. Pretty much every physical theory today had been tested by Ockhams Razor so your dismissal of it is a bit like the analogy of King Cnut ordering the sea back. > To say that there's nothing fundamental about symmetry is to question > basic axioms of math and physics (maybe a*b is not equal to b*a) and I > can't argue about axioms except to say that most of them are axioms > because they work. Mathematics uses axioms more than physics. In physics it is normally more an offshoot of the mathematics used to describe the theory than anything else. I am not sure what you mean about a fundamental axiom of symmetry in physics. I might be misreading your post. Saying an "axiom is an axiom because it works" is also not really the case in science. Often theories are developed before the experimental proof arrives. Your line of reasoning, while having the allure of sounding all "hands on" and practical, falls into a circular line of logic. > And sometimes 2 is fundamental and just can't be 2.00000001. 2 can be used for a discrete object - eg 2 oranges - in which time it is a precise unit. But in pretty much every other situation there is an experimental assumption made about the accuracy. Even, for example, if I say the distance between "me" and the monitor is 1.000 m, there is a massive margin of error in that (both implied and actual). If I described the distance as 1m am I implying more or less accuracy? |