Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 26 Oct 2006 07:18 In article <ehqb2e$8qk_001(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <SuydnbA1IYhqJqLYRVnysQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehnf70$8qk_008(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <ehiku1$rv0$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>> >>>>So if anything, the prewar deaths are over-reported, since you're relying >>>>on >>>>people to tell you, and for post-war deaths, you have death certificates. >>> >>> When did the public records offices get reopened in that country? >>> How does their public records offices work? >>> >>> I would need to know this before I'd even bother reading the >>> report of estimated death count. >> >>How do you know this is not mentioned in the report? > >Because of the way you people used the number to support your >faulty conclusions. Becaues of the way it was reported by >the BBC and CBS news. Because common sense says that there >is no way to count dead heads in a country that has a living >style of killing for the hell of it. Because keeping records >is a bureaucrat function. Bureaucracy is usually the first >piece of infrastructure to go when a government is toppled. >Because when the UN inspectors would go inspect in the buildings >that were supposed to be the place where all this paper is kept >and not a scrap remained. > Don't you think the people who did this at Johns Hopkins, the editors at Lancet, and the peer reviewers had these same concerns and that they were satisified that they had been addressed before publishing it? >> >>Do you feel you are able to peer review a document without seeing it? > >I don't have to peer review any document since I'm not a peer. > >ARe you saying that, becuase the authors have titles and have >not stated their hidden agenda that I am supposed to not >ever question it? You can question whether carbon has 6 protons; doing so doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless you've got some evidence. Saying "I don't like this" is what creationists do and think that alone shoots down evolution. > >You want me to beleive that there are more deaths happening now >than before when there is no way that Saddam, his sons, and >sycophants would record their little killing games. > >/BAH > Yes. Every reasonable person knows there are more deaths now.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 26 Oct 2006 13:00 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:43:17 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:13:35 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan ><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>>Sure, it's like a higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a >>>simpler one. Newton's equations lack some small high-order terms. >>>Einstein's are better. >> >>No, the comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity is >>not at all like that. To say that Einstein's GR theory is "like a >>higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a simpler one" of >>Newton's is appalling. You could not possibly be further away from >>describing their relationship. > >Why appalling? If you used the GR expression for the gravitational >attraction of two point masses as a function of distance, and applied >it to small masses at large distances (like, say, all our planets but >Mercury) some terms would be so small as to be OK to ignore, and you'd >wind up with Newton's equation. That's exactly the same effect as >dropping high-order terms in a polynomial curve fit. It's appalling because comparing these two theories as being like higher order terms in a polynomial is so wrong to do. That you cannot see this tells me a lot about you. Newton's theory of gravity uses the idea of a euclidean space; Einstein's uses the general idea of coordinate invariance and absolute differential geometry from Tullio Levi-Civita (who actually taught him about it directly, in Berlin.) Newton defined true motion of an object as a motion through absolute space (in a sense I can get into, if need be, but you should already see why that is so); Einstein made no such definition, in fact quite the opposite and there is no absolute frame with Einstein. Newton assumed that time passes uniformly and absolutely; Einstein did not. Newton assumed that space itself is a thing distinct from objects and energy; Einstein did not (in fact, if you ever bothered to derive Einstein's special theory from the two founding equations, you'd see the implications that frames can be seen as like separate universes except for energy exchange via photons, immediately from those initial founding statements.) Newton kept inertia and gravitation as separate entities and provided no explanation for the apparent ratio between them being 1; Einstein took them to not just be similar and related by the constant 1, but actually to be one and exactly the same underlying thing. Newton's gravitation force acted instantly over distance; Einstein's does not. I could go on for a while. Theories are things that speak in our mind about the universe around us. Newton's theory is a mindspace thing. Einstein's theory is a mindspace thing. They are independent theories, almost entirely but certainly in their deeper fundamentals. What is interesting is that out of these great differences in concept, one can still deduce to specific cases very similar quantitites. But the fact of being able to calculate mere quantities when taking the trouble to deduce these two very different theories to quite specific cases does not in any way then suggest that the theories themselves are related to each other by something described as "high-order terms in a polynomial." I do feel sorry for you, if that's all you imagine is going on. By this metric, you might very well imagine that all a scientific theory is, is a mathematical model of some kind. If you do, you are sadly and terribly mistaken. By the way, since I'm on the subject, general relativity starts with the easily understood assumption that inertial mass and gravitational mass aren't just coincidentally related by the constant, 1. But that they _are_ the same inherent physical thing. It is so beautiful to behold because of this equivalence of inertia and gravitational mass and the use of the general idea of coordinate invariance (absolute differential geometry from Levi-Civita.) The result is a simple relationship between spacetime geomtery and energy+momentum distributions, related only by the simple constant, 8*PI*G. I now also remember to note that Marcel Grossmann was a fellow student of Einstein's. Einstein hardly ever went to classes and Grossman actually gave Einstein his class notes to help him with the class tests. Einstein barely got through, so he didn't get the "good jobs" and did tutoring, etc. So it came to Marcel's father, who got Einsten his job at the patent office, too. When it came to developing the general theory, it was again Marcel who first told him that tensors was the approach Einstein needed to learn, helping Einstein a bit in and around 1908, I think. And which later led to Einstein (in 1913, I think) to find Levi-Civita in Berlin, who then taught Einstein directly for a while. Einstein didn't know much Italian, Levi-Civita didn't know much German, so they each had to converse mostly in their poor English. But the point here again is that although these imagined ideas (theories) do have rigorous implications when they are deduced to specifics, it is not the case that the similarity of quantities calculated should in any way suggest that the theories are like "higher order terms in a polynomial." Amazing that you could spout the words. >OK, be appalled if it makes you happy, if indeed anything ever makes >you happy. No, I'm just appalled. But you are free to imagine I'm happy. Karl Popper has written a couple of relatively popular (for books on the philosophy of science) books you might want to read. They are "Objective Knowledge" and "Conjectures and Refutations." Jacob Bronowski's "The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination" is pretty good and more recent. However, for a compact and modern version, David Miller published "Critical Rationalism: a Restatement and Defence," (from Open Court Books) in 1994. >You are beginning to argue against what I say not because it's not >valid, but because you don't like me. Most cool. I wonder how far I >could extend this process. No, that's just how you see it because you are so far off the beam. In fact, I quite recently told you about how impressed I was with a post of yours, so frankly I've no idea where you are coming from with this bit. But feel free to feel as you like. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 26 Oct 2006 13:23 On Thu, 26 Oct 06 11:18:39 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: ><snip> >>ARe you saying that, becuase the authors have titles and have >>not stated their hidden agenda that I am supposed to not >>ever question it? > >You can question whether carbon has 6 protons; doing so doesn't amount to a >hill of beans unless you've got some evidence. Saying "I don't like this" is >what creationists do and think that alone shoots down evolution. ><snip> Hehe. Nicely stated. A phrase I crafted up (I'm sure it's been reinvented a hundred times, though) some time ago was: "Having an equal right to an opinion isn't the same as having a right to an equal opinion." This was designed for those who conflate the two ideas -- the idea of a right to an opinion and the idea of opinions being equally good -- and cannot seem to discern the difference. Having a right to speak one's mind doesn't inherently make ignorant opinions equal to informed ones. Informed opinion is usually worth some time to think about, while ignorant opinions rarely are. In a similar vein, being ignorant and therefore having questions about something should not be placed even close to the same class as informed skepticism. Ignorant questioning is in no way similar to informed debate. And ignorant doubt does not equal informed challenge. Jon -- Saying religion is the source of morality is like saying a squirrel is the source of acorns -- [Jon Kirwan, 2002.]
From: John Larkin on 26 Oct 2006 14:19 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:28:16 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> > >> >> > Haven't you ever wondered why he hadn't if they [Clinton's anti-terror >> >> plans] were so > comprehensive and complete and effective? >> >> >> >> He did, some of them, while he was in office. Implementation of these >> >> things takes time. Bush was unable to do anything in 9 months >> > >> >Because he was too busy taking time off to play golf. >> >> Clinton played a lot more golf, and cheated. > >He didn't take as much time off though. > >How do you cheat at golf btw ? > >Graham Mulligan. John
From: T Wake on 26 Oct 2006 14:26
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4540D2CA.D44ADBD0(a)hotmail.com... > > > MooseFET wrote: > >> The "christian right" does the same sort of thing in a much more >> obvious way. They say they want to go back to traditional values that >> were in fact never a tradition in the first place. > > Compare with Thatcher's 'Victorian values'. > > Good God, how did they ever get away with that one ? Very scary. Because no one from the Victorian period is still alive so they can get away with a "rose tinted" impression of it. Very few people know enough of history to appreciate how "wrong" Victorian family values were. Much better to take us back to the eighth century family values. (Or accept that, despite what some people think, the modern world is not a decadent cess pit and our current family values are fine). |