Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 13 Oct 2006 16:16 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > That looks more like talking fertilizer. > > > Yeah, well that would be an accurate description of JoeBloe as well. > > Eric Lucas Hmmm, Joe Bloe....? BIO fertilizer is the better choice. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: T Wake on 13 Oct 2006 17:29 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:yKQXg.14611$6S3.4796(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:zOadnVjl0azTVrLYRVnyiA(a)pipex.net... >> >> In physics it is normally more an offshoot of the mathematics used to >> describe the theory than anything else. > > There are no axioms of physics. Possibly a semantic argument here, but there are _some_ axioms in physics (assuming the shared meaning of the word is similar to "a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference") but I think they are slightly different than what John is thinking of. They certainly do not undermine the value of using Ockhams Razor.
From: John Larkin on 13 Oct 2006 17:57 On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:29:03 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:yKQXg.14611$6S3.4796(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> news:zOadnVjl0azTVrLYRVnyiA(a)pipex.net... >>> >>> In physics it is normally more an offshoot of the mathematics used to >>> describe the theory than anything else. >> >> There are no axioms of physics. > >Possibly a semantic argument here, but there are _some_ axioms in physics >(assuming the shared meaning of the word is similar to "a statement accepted >as true as the basis for argument or inference") but I think they are >slightly different than what John is thinking of. They certainly do not >undermine the value of using Ockhams Razor. > I was first thinking of conservation of energy, which results in a number of ways to get the number 2, exactly. But, actually, 2 is no simpler a number than 2.000000006, is it? John
From: lucasea on 13 Oct 2006 18:08 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:ar20j2dknqp7afk9mcfeickjcprvnsh1a3(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:29:03 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:yKQXg.14611$6S3.4796(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>> news:zOadnVjl0azTVrLYRVnyiA(a)pipex.net... >>>> >>>> In physics it is normally more an offshoot of the mathematics used to >>>> describe the theory than anything else. >>> >>> There are no axioms of physics. >> >>Possibly a semantic argument here, but there are _some_ axioms in physics >>(assuming the shared meaning of the word is similar to "a statement >>accepted >>as true as the basis for argument or inference") but I think they are >>slightly different than what John is thinking of. They certainly do not >>undermine the value of using Ockhams Razor. > > I was first thinking of conservation of energy, which results in a > number of ways to get the number 2, exactly. Conservation of energy is true only to the extent that we are able to measure it. It is merely an observation, it is *not* an immutable fact. We assume it holds true to infinite precision, but there is no way to prove it. It is, as I have said before, the simplest way to explain a large number of experimental observations, and is actually therefore also a beneficiary of Ockham's Razor. > But, actually, 2 is no simpler a number than 2.000000006, is it? I would argue that it is. Eric Lucas
From: Spehro Pefhany on 13 Oct 2006 19:29
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:49:35 +0100, the renowned "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"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. They've even got one named "Pueblo", which I believe they use as a museum. >> 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. > 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 |