Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 24 Oct 2006 14:22 On Tue, 24 Oct 06 10:27:14 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >>>Whether or not models are correct is not important to us. >>>What is important that they provide accurately predictive >>>tools for us to use. >> >>Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools? >>Simple cases, like bacterial drug or temperature resistance, are >>somewhat predictable and can be verified by experiment. But how about >>macro things, like the creation of new genera and orders? Are past >>creations at this level "predictable" after the fact? > >Predict the movement of a body in a 3-body system. > >> Given the masses, locations, and velocities, this can be done with extreme accuracy for some amount of time. The time depends on the precision of the inputs and the available computational resources. In most cases, the time over which accurate predictions can be made is extreme, billions of orbital periods. Pathological/chaotic cases can still be predicted for usefully long times. Even the chaotic behaviors have predictable statistics. John
From: John Larkin on 24 Oct 2006 14:35 On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:gldsj29b1c1911oi7v8ii0secbsntuh51o(a)4ax.com... >> >> >>>>>> Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to >>>>>> watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor. >>>>> >>>>>All topics have conferences like that. >>>>> >>>> >>>>I find physicists to be especially aggressive. >>> >>>Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient. >> >> "That can't work" is pretty terse, especially when it turns out later >> that it can work. > >"Wow, that is great. It looks cool. It sound cool. It has a trendy >presentation and has been posted all over USENET in capital letters. It has >lots of pretty looking documents and some young guy who keeps talking about >how Einstein was ignored early on supporting it. It has the potential to >solve the worlds energy needs. It will allow mankind to colonise Mars. It is >brilliant" - is not very terse and it is even worse when it is discovered >that it will never work (*). > >"That can't work" is indeed pretty terse and more often than not, it turns >out it actually can't work. One seriously good idea per decade is great in some fields. But you won't get that one if you murder tham all at birth. > >For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How >should people react to new ideas? Habishi would be a good example... > > What's Habishi? No obvious google hits. Have you read "The Trouble With Physics"? His point is that the orthodoxy and old farts of "the system" freeze out the ideas, even ideas from people who are proficient in current theory. I see the same groupthink in engineering, where orthodoxy keeps people from allowing themselves to think; and not just wild amateurs, but people who have the skills and discipline to think, but won't. His other point is that fundamental physics has made no real progress in 30 years or so, so it's time for some ideas. This fascinates me, as one of my interests is the interaction of intellect and emotion, and where new ideas come from, or don't. I make my living designing things that other people can't; and mostly they could if they let themselves. John
From: John Larkin on 24 Oct 2006 14:43 On 24 Oct 2006 07:29:23 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> Only the person known >> as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. > >Perhaps the problem is that you spelled it "nucular" when you did your >google search. When I tried that I got mostly stuff about North Korea >gitting nucular wepins. That's how W pronounces it. As did Jimmy Carter, who was a peanut farmer and a "nucular" engineer. John
From: T Wake on 24 Oct 2006 16:03 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:nkmsj2p3uhnf5d5ai3gfo835c0h0gnns0j(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:gldsj29b1c1911oi7v8ii0secbsntuh51o(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> >>>>>>> Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor. >>>>>> >>>>>>All topics have conferences like that. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I find physicists to be especially aggressive. >>>> >>>>Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient. >>> >>> "That can't work" is pretty terse, especially when it turns out later >>> that it can work. >> >>"Wow, that is great. It looks cool. It sound cool. It has a trendy >>presentation and has been posted all over USENET in capital letters. It >>has >>lots of pretty looking documents and some young guy who keeps talking >>about >>how Einstein was ignored early on supporting it. It has the potential to >>solve the worlds energy needs. It will allow mankind to colonise Mars. It >>is >>brilliant" - is not very terse and it is even worse when it is discovered >>that it will never work (*). >> >>"That can't work" is indeed pretty terse and more often than not, it turns >>out it actually can't work. > > One seriously good idea per decade is great in some fields. But you > won't get that one if you murder tham all at birth. True but if you try to nurture every idea to see if it is good you will also never get that one good one - as it will be drowned in the sea of wasted time and money. The key is finding the balance. Sometimes good ideas are quashed. If they are good, they survive this and prosper. >> >>For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How >>should people react to new ideas? Habishi would be a good example... >> >> > > What's Habishi? No obvious google hits. Sorry, I forget how cross posted this thread is. I didn't mean to produce an "in joke" but Habishi is a regular on news://sci.physics with his constant supply of "new ideas" to solve things like the worlds energy crisis. I suspect every newsgroup has them. > Have you read "The Trouble With Physics"? His point is that the > orthodoxy and old farts of "the system" freeze out the ideas, even > ideas from people who are proficient in current theory. It does happen but no where near as much as some people try to make out. Sometimes it is a good thing - if research money was spent every time someone "invented" a perpetual motion machine (for example), soon funds would dry up. Even people who are proficient in current theories make mistakes and get things wrong. There is no rush in theoretical physics, if the idea is really good eventually the Old Farts die out and the idea can be accepted. At least by that time it will actually be a sound idea. > I see the same > groupthink in engineering, where orthodoxy keeps people from allowing > themselves to think; and not just wild amateurs, but people who have > the skills and discipline to think, but won't. There is a difference between thinking of new ideas and coming up with harebrained ideas. When people are told their ideas are wrong (for want of a better word), there is often some feeling of anger and betrayal. This then tends to turn into the person railing at the "system" which is holding them back. (Again sci.physics has _lots_ of these, I am sure the other groups do too). In very, very rare cases this may be true. Normally it is just because the idea is actually crackpot. > His other point is that fundamental physics has made no real progress > in 30 years or so, so it's time for some ideas. Well, I don't agree with his conclusions here. First off, it took humanity almost the age of the universe to realise matter was made of atoms, why should we continue to make progress at an even faster rate. More seriously, there is always the possibility that there is _no_ further progress to be made in some areas. Quarks may indeed be fundamental. The standard model, in all its ugliness, may be the _best_ description humanity can produce of the observed phenomena. Gravity may never unite with the strong, EM and weak forces. To demand continual and regular progress strikes me as being odd. That said, lots of progress _has_ taken place in Physics in the last thirty years. Just because it is not turned into sensationalised news doesn't mean it isn't happening. > This fascinates me, as > one of my interests is the interaction of intellect and emotion, and > where new ideas come from, or don't. I make my living designing things > that other people can't; and mostly they could if they let themselves. Often the case. Lots of great breakthroughs seem obvious when they become "known." I suppose the key is being the person who can see it first.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 24 Oct 2006 16:30
On 24 Oct 2006 15:57:39 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> I think of engineering, in general, as the application of science and >> math knowledge for practical purposes. Not all science knowledge can >> be used, at some particular moment anyway, for such purposes. And it >> is definitely true that not all mathematical knowledge can be used for >> practical needs. >> >> (Mathematicians sometimes gleefully seek and are actually attracted to >> researching some area that they are personally convinced no one will >> ever use for practical things -- I particularly remember John Conway's >> comments in that regard.) > > >Hi Jonathan! > >Math is, one of 'The Sciences'... I mentally separate it. That is because I "see" the sciences as being about understanding shared reality. About nature, in other words. Mathematics is a universe of its own, a place where you can disappear into and discover whole new territories unrelated to anything else. Some mathematicians (many, really) believe that this space is not only as real as nature, but fundamentally real in its own right. And that conformance of nature to it is no accident. But that's another discussion. >Surely my baddest, but. That's too bad. It's one of my few loves of life. Jon |