From: T Wake on

"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:inlej292cqo45b4n02fm0vjcquf5rrge41(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:06:04 +0100, Eeyore
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us:
>
>>It's still quite mad.
> ^^ You spelled "I'm" incorrectly, DonkTARD.

Good point. He should have said you were quite mad. That would have been an
accurate comment of his.

Anything else you want to admit to now?


From: T Wake on

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4536D12E.536949A8(a)hotmail.com...
>
>
> T Wake wrote:
>
>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > There appears to be a tendency in humans to want certainty in life.
>> > Science provides absolutely no certainty, only explanations of varying
>> > degrees of usefulness. Religion provides absolute certainty, and
>> > religious explanations are therefore very appealing. In some sense,
>> > some
>> > of the theories of science (notably, evolution, but I think there are
>> > others) cast doubt on this certainty, and the religions appear to be
>> > fighting back by highlighting the uncertainty of the science, and the
>> > certainty of their religious offering. Sadly, the result is the
>> > ongoing
>> > decline of US science education, and a dearth of good American-born
>> > graduates at all levels of many sciences. Who knows where that will
>> > lead,
>> > but my gut feel is that it ain't good for the US economic or technical
>> > world hegemony.
>>
>> Unfortunately it isn't just the US. Universities in the UK are closing
>> science departments all over the country, and starting numerous courses
>> in
>> "new media" or other arts type courses ("Surf management" for example)
>
> And a *few* ppl are now waking up to the fact that service industries
> don't
> invent things !

When more than a few people wake up to this, I will be happier.


From: T Wake on

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:p0mdj29rrhlrl7g74vu9kkqsg2ib9d0lb9(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:56:56 +0100, "T Wake"
> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>One thing I find odd, is that you don't think DNA/RNA mutation and
>>evolution
>>is amazing and wonderful in itself. Isn't it amazing how four bases can
>>produce such variety?
>
> The four bases are a programming language. The *programs* and their
> high-level structure will turn out to be astonishing in their own
> right.

It is already astonishing that ACGT can spell out a human and a fruit fly.
The analogy of a programming language may be accurate, and is certainly
attractive, but answers nothing.


From: T Wake on

<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2xBZg.17712$6S3.8120(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
> news:0cmdnWILnIOmN6vYRVnysw(a)pipex.net...
>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:jnxZg.16082$e66.10170(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Many here don't, and are quick to take offense. I hate the fact that I
> have to waste so much time trying to keep this discussion focused, civil
> and respectful.

Sadly a fact of USENET :-) Still, its not really time wasted :-)


>> 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 :-))
>
> I have known several people who have gone to school later in life. I have
> to say that I respect it a lot. The fact that one loses one's ability to
> learn new concepts with age is in my observation way more than
> counterbalanced by the increased maturity, motivation, and focus on what
> really matters.

I heartilly agree. As a teenager I was interested in pretty much anything
other than school. I was convinced I was going to join the Army at 16 and
(in my mind) classrooms were a waste of my life. When I was older and more
sensible (and I realised I needed a civilian job!) I had the sense to
readapt my view point.

Education is wasted on the young :-)


>> Sadly, a lot of people become almost religious in their zeal regarding
>> new theories, and string theory is certainly suffers from this.
>
> I guess I don't have enough exposure to such cutting edge physicists to
> see this.

I dont have much exposure to cutting edge physicists myself anymore - my
wife has more than I and I tend to get lost when the conversation turns
"technical."

My comment was more aimed at the people who write the pop science books,
which while they are often fantastic and amazingly well written, there is a
tendency to fantasise about the possibilites and realities of new ideas.


>> 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 can understand that. I guess the way I look at it now, much like most
> of theoretical physics, is that it is much more a mathematical construct
> than a physical theory. As such, they aren't really expected to make
> useful predictions so much as to provide a mathematical underpinning. As
> such, it's not so much a theory as a basis for describing. (On the other
> hand, maybe I don't understand the purpose behind a GUT.) Hopefully, at
> some point when the mathematical construct has been fleshed out better,
> one would hope that it does make useful predictions, but until then, I
> don't have a problem with people having enthusiasm for it, much like any
> other field of mathematics--as long as they understand the limitations of
> the construct. I'm not a physicist, but my understanding is that quarks
> were an exactly analogous "discovery"--at first, they were a mathematical
> construct, that was eventually fleshed out enough to make predictions
> about how we might observe quarks--which we then proceeded to do. While
> it remains to be seen whether string theory will reach the same level of
> experimental support to be considered a physical theory, as opposed to
> theoretical physics.


I think I can see where you are coming from here, and largely agree with
you. As far as the mathematics of "hyperspace" goes, it is fascinating. When
an idea wants to evolve from the mathematical structures into a theory, it
needs to make a prediction. Even new mathematics has this burden but at
least there it "simply" has to make a mathematical proof.


>> I am fully aware I am not in keeping with the majority viewpoint here
>
> I'm not so sure that's true. I've heard this critique a lot, from some
> well respected physicists.

Cool. :-) Impressions of "mainstream" can be a bit skewed by the prolific
nature of string theories supporters in the media.


>>>> 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.
>
> As I understand it, EW and strong have already been unified--not true?

Yes, sorry, there is a unified theory for them, although I would have to
check if this is experimentally verified yet. The problem is entirely with
gravity.

> Perhaps they need to be unified in a slightly different way--a new
> connection needs to be found between them--in order to be more compatible
> with gravity without such mind-bending mathematical contortions as
> quantized 11-dimensional space-time.

It would be ideal.

One thing I still cant get my head round is the need to unify all four. It
seems there is an unproven assumption it will be possible so the quest
continues. Seems strange to me, but then so do a lot of things.


From: T Wake on

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45376EAA.AF2F3DBB(a)earthlink.net...
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA?
>> Why
>> have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human?
>
>
> Because that designer knows his tools, and how to use them. Do you
> think that a bridge should be made of plastic, because steel had been
> used for cars that will cross it?
>
> Do you think a designer should learn a whole new disciple for every
> project they do? Maybe we need an infinite number of elements so we
> never use the same in any two designs?

Gibberish non-answer.