Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 17:16 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:4dgZg.13890$GR.3197(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:Qrqdndr70MFGuajYRVnysA(a)pipex.net... >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:TAYYg.14731$vJ2.12451(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... >> >>> Again, nice try--you're just more moralistic than the rest of us. >> >> Not from the point of view of my moral code. > > There's a difference between "moral" and "moralistic". > Fair one.
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 17:53 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:nbydnQkv4doGEKvYnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:dEuZg.16010$e66.176(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... >> >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >> message news:6vhcj257beh7bgi1u0iac8m5mshbm5cmsr(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:40:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> it's their destiny. As someone pointed out, many of the great >>> scientists (Newton, Einstein) were Believers, and it didn't damage >>> their creativity or math skills. I bet both were taught Creationism >>> big-time. >> >> Maybe, but there's a big difference between the Jewish/Catholic (and most >> Protestant sects') teachings, which take most New- and Old-Testament >> stories as allegorical, and Christian Fundamentalism, which treat those >> stories as literal truth (this is the basis for the name >> "Fundamentalist"). An allegory about the formation of the universe is a >> lot less damaging than a fairy tale that is to be taken literally. >> >> >>>>If you're suggesting that ID is a viable scientific theory, then the >>>>onus is >>>>on *you* to come up with the experiments that will test that theory. >>> >>> I'm suggesting that, given a big problem (and the universe is a *big* >>> problem) and no viable much less testable theories, there's no cause >>> for being hostile to any suggestion, and more than for being convinced >>> of any truth. >> >> If they make no useful predictions and aren't testable/falsifiable, they >> don't belong in science class. Period. >> >> String theory, and the resulting outcomes, are in a slightly different >> class from ID/CS. > > Well......... > > :-) The discussion below was meant to be an explanation of that difference. Do you disagree that they are fundamentally diffferent? (that's an honest question, not an invitation to an argument.) >> String theory is essentially mathematics, and not physics, and is the >> only credible attempt (so far) to develop a mathematical construct that >> unifies the electroweak force and gravity, and finally provide a unified >> theory that explains all forces from a fundamental perspective. It has >> not yet yielded any testable predictions, but I think that is from a >> perspective of being far from complete. Ultimately, I think string >> theorists do hope that the unification of those two forces will >> ultimately provide new insights into physics that do provide testable >> theories. The difference between it and ID/CS is that string theorists >> are at least making a serious attempt to explain a physical phenomenon in >> a way that may ultimately provide testable results. ID/CS shortcuts all >> that, and says "it's true because the Giant Spaghetti Monster said it's >> true." I don't see any possibility of that leading to any testable >> hypotheses. If you think otherwise, then give me such a hypothesis, and >> test it, and I'll be more than happy to have it taught in science class. >> >> Personally, I tend to be of the opinion that gravity is a non-fundamental >> force, in much the same way that centrifugal force is non-fundamental, in >> that it is a side result of inertia in a non-inertial (rotating) frame of >> reference. Gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time that is >> described by Special Relativity. This may ultimately make it impossible >> to unify the different forces in a meaningful and useful way, but I think >> we're a long way from knowing whether or not that is true. In any case, >> there's a good reason cutting-edge stuff like this isn't taught in high >> school science classes--the students just don't have the basis of >> experience needed to critically evaluate a such a new entity. > > I agree with this, the quest for a GUT is a strange one and based on the > belief that all four forces _must_ have quantized particles and be > unite-able. > > Gravity, certainly in my day, was taught as a curvature of space time. > There is no force carrier required as it shapes the "spacetime" everything > else exists in. Well, I guess that sort of begs the question, because there must be a mechanism for an object here to bend spacetime hundreds of millions of miles away. That is discomforting. > That said, I hope I am wrong. I hope that someone actually does something > with the numerous theories bounding around - although at the moment I > doubt any could really be called "scientific theories." I agree, they're mostly mathematical noodlings, at this point. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 17:54 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:sK6dndcNHO1WDavYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:45363396.C560073(a)earthlink.net... >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>> No, the acts of a lot of people here bother me enough to publicly >>> criticize >>> them, yet I still want to be "around" them in the context of this >>> discussion. >>> >>> By the way, it is the church leadership of which I am critical. I have >>> many >>> friends in several of the congregations, and I thoroughly enjoy being >>> around >>> them, even though I deplore something their church does (that happens to >>> be >>> illegal.) >>> >>> That may be your view--nice black-and-white worldview you've got there. >>> I >>> don't have that luxury, I see good and bad in everybody and everything. >>> I >>> get what I want out of the "relationship", and they appear to as well. >>> We >>> don't have to love everything each other does, but we can certainly >>> appreciate each other for what we and they are worth. >> >> And your world view that allows you to ignore illegal acts somehow >> makes you non hypocritical? It also makes you an accessory after the >> fact, and depending on the crime, you could be charged for not reporting >> it, when it does come under public scrutiny. > > Nice line in gibberish you have going there. Almost enough to build a > strawman. Wow, quite a discussion we've got going here. The strawman people now have strawman wannabes. > Spending time with people who behave / think in a manner you don't agree > with is not hypocritical. It gives them the chance to teach _you_ why they > behave like that and _you_ the chance to educate them. Indeed. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 18:27 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:jnxZg.16082$e66.10170(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:nbydnQkv4doGEKvYnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:dEuZg.16010$e66.176(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... >>> >>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>> message news:6vhcj257beh7bgi1u0iac8m5mshbm5cmsr(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:40:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> it's their destiny. As someone pointed out, many of the great >>>> scientists (Newton, Einstein) were Believers, and it didn't damage >>>> their creativity or math skills. I bet both were taught Creationism >>>> big-time. >>> >>> Maybe, but there's a big difference between the Jewish/Catholic (and >>> most Protestant sects') teachings, which take most New- and >>> Old-Testament stories as allegorical, and Christian Fundamentalism, >>> which treat those stories as literal truth (this is the basis for the >>> name "Fundamentalist"). An allegory about the formation of the universe >>> is a lot less damaging than a fairy tale that is to be taken literally. >>> >>> >>>>>If you're suggesting that ID is a viable scientific theory, then the >>>>>onus is >>>>>on *you* to come up with the experiments that will test that theory. >>>> >>>> I'm suggesting that, given a big problem (and the universe is a *big* >>>> problem) and no viable much less testable theories, there's no cause >>>> for being hostile to any suggestion, and more than for being convinced >>>> of any truth. >>> >>> If they make no useful predictions and aren't testable/falsifiable, they >>> don't belong in science class. Period. >>> >>> String theory, and the resulting outcomes, are in a slightly different >>> class from ID/CS. >> >> Well......... >> >> :-) > > The discussion below was meant to be an explanation of that difference. > Do you disagree that they are fundamentally diffferent? (that's an honest > question, not an invitation to an argument.) Generally, I treat all your questions as honest ones and I do try to respond in kind. This is a difficult question for me to answer as I suffer from two big problems regarding physics - I went to university late in life (I do not mean these in a disparaging matter, merely acceptance of the fact that after a while it becomes harder to "warm" to new ideas :-)) and when I studied String Theory was not really taught, even my post graduate work didn't touch on it. This has resulted in me carrying a certain bias against string theory, in that while it is "popular" and some very, very talented people support it, I cant shake the distrust for something which fails a lot of the basic tenets of physics. Sadly, a lot of people become almost religious in their zeal regarding new theories, and string theory is certainly suffers from this. When (if) string theory can be formed into something which makes testable predictions as well as explaining the currently observed data - without suffering from torturous, ad hoc, adjustments to shoe horn a fit - I will be forced to reconsider. Until then, I really cant shake the feeling it is more belief than science. I am fully aware I am not in keeping with the majority viewpoint here and none of this means I disagree with any of the rest of your post. String theory at least has the potential to be testable :-) >>> String theory is essentially mathematics, and not physics, and is the >>> only credible attempt (so far) to develop a mathematical construct that >>> unifies the electroweak force and gravity, and finally provide a unified >>> theory that explains all forces from a fundamental perspective. It has >>> not yet yielded any testable predictions, but I think that is from a >>> perspective of being far from complete. Ultimately, I think string >>> theorists do hope that the unification of those two forces will >>> ultimately provide new insights into physics that do provide testable >>> theories. The difference between it and ID/CS is that string theorists >>> are at least making a serious attempt to explain a physical phenomenon >>> in a way that may ultimately provide testable results. ID/CS shortcuts >>> all that, and says "it's true because the Giant Spaghetti Monster said >>> it's true." I don't see any possibility of that leading to any testable >>> hypotheses. If you think otherwise, then give me such a hypothesis, and >>> test it, and I'll be more than happy to have it taught in science class. >>> >>> Personally, I tend to be of the opinion that gravity is a >>> non-fundamental force, in much the same way that centrifugal force is >>> non-fundamental, in that it is a side result of inertia in a >>> non-inertial (rotating) frame of reference. Gravity is a result of the >>> curvature of space-time that is described by Special Relativity. This >>> may ultimately make it impossible to unify the different forces in a >>> meaningful and useful way, but I think we're a long way from knowing >>> whether or not that is true. In any case, there's a good reason >>> cutting-edge stuff like this isn't taught in high school science >>> classes--the students just don't have the basis of experience needed to >>> critically evaluate a such a new entity. >> >> I agree with this, the quest for a GUT is a strange one and based on the >> belief that all four forces _must_ have quantized particles and be >> unite-able. >> >> Gravity, certainly in my day, was taught as a curvature of space time. >> There is no force carrier required as it shapes the "spacetime" >> everything else exists in. > > Well, I guess that sort of begs the question, because there must be a > mechanism for an object here to bend spacetime hundreds of millions of > miles away. That is discomforting. It does beg the question, and for me personally finding that mechanism would be more worthwhile than trying to unify the electroweak, strong force and gravity. Even modern theories borrow this old view - brane theory for example carries with it an ideal solution. Gravity would simply be a measure of how much a given mass disturbs the membrane the universe is on. The old rubber mat analogy has a lot to answer for :-) >> That said, I hope I am wrong. I hope that
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 18:27
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:ToxZg.16084$e66.13844(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:sK6dndcNHO1WDavYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:45363396.C560073(a)earthlink.net... >>> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>> No, the acts of a lot of people here bother me enough to publicly >>>> criticize >>>> them, yet I still want to be "around" them in the context of this >>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> By the way, it is the church leadership of which I am critical. I have >>>> many >>>> friends in several of the congregations, and I thoroughly enjoy being >>>> around >>>> them, even though I deplore something their church does (that happens >>>> to be >>>> illegal.) >>>> >>>> That may be your view--nice black-and-white worldview you've got there. >>>> I >>>> don't have that luxury, I see good and bad in everybody and everything. >>>> I >>>> get what I want out of the "relationship", and they appear to as well. >>>> We >>>> don't have to love everything each other does, but we can certainly >>>> appreciate each other for what we and they are worth. >>> >>> And your world view that allows you to ignore illegal acts somehow >>> makes you non hypocritical? It also makes you an accessory after the >>> fact, and depending on the crime, you could be charged for not reporting >>> it, when it does come under public scrutiny. >> >> Nice line in gibberish you have going there. Almost enough to build a >> strawman. > > Wow, quite a discussion we've got going here. The strawman people now > have strawman wannabes. Strawbabies. :-) |