Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Oct 2006 06:48 In article <Dg80h.5$e06.363(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>In article <iLOdnYf2fLhzz6LYRVnyuw(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehndut$8qk_001(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>>>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the >>>>>>>best >>>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>>>> >>>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some >>>>>one >>>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >>>>>because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything in the >>>>>scientific method. >>>> >>>> No. No matter how the concept is refined, the lab method worked. >>>> I can then use that method to predict similar setups. That's >>>> how science works. >>> >>>I know how science works. >>> >>>We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what >>>happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your >>>understanding of what you are observing. >>> >>>A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new >>>(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that happens we >>>[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*. >>> >>>That is how science works. >> >>I know. What you seem to omit is that the old method will still >>continue to work within the range of the old measurements. >> >>I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >>work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. > >Crude? For nearly all macroscopic situations we encounter Newtonian >physics is good to 7-8 decimal places or better, far more accurate >than the input parameters typically are. Not so crude:-) Yea. Thanks. It was the only word I could produce to make the contrast. :-) > >>I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use >>because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. > >It is even worse than bad form, under most circumstances it is pompous >twittery. <GRIN> > You know, you've the kind of people who enjoy saying "all >you know is wrong, I know better, nah nah nananah...". You would >think they should grow out of this by the end of adolescence but some >people never do. I had my virtual baseball bat that stopped a little bit; alas it was never a permanent cure. > >Sure, Newtonian physics is not exact. It is an approximation, and a >damn good one over a broad range of physical parameters. Calling it >"wrong" is stupid. Thanks for the clarification. I'm not only hip deep in allygaters, I think they're raining down. /BAH
From: T Wake on 27 Oct 2006 07:55 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:tkd2k2ln4am02ibt32bnokvuiqr2t2nvr7(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:22:04 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:0sb2k29hdbpv2963m3p6a193gdea0tjb0h(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:44:21 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>You must have misread my post. Can you read over it again and see where >>>>I >>>>said Newtonian gravity doesn't work, I don't think I said it and I hope >>>>I >>>>didn't imply it. >>> >>> I think you said that it works when it works. No argument. >>> >>>> >>>>I am talking about the possibility that a future theory of gravity _may_ >>>>overhaul the Newtonian mechanics for low mass objects and slow speeds. >>>>There >>>>is nothing in the scientific method which precludes a future generation >>>>discovering a better experimental test and finding a flaw in the >>>>Newtonian >>>>theory because of something we have no knowledge of at this time. >>> >>> Someone is currently experimenting to see if the forces change at >>> small, mm, sorts of distances. Some theory suggests this, higher >>> dimensions wrapped into smallish circles or something. >> >>Well, string theory and its offshoots are borderline science (IMHO of >>course), but at least they make _some_ predictions. >><snip> > > I'm still struggling with Lie Algebras and reflection spaces, right > now, so I'm kind of working towards but generally ignorant of string > theory. But I'm also about at the same place regarding string > theory's borderline status. And as you say, at least it does make > _some_ predictions. I suppose it probably will be a few years before > some new experimental results will test the low-energy domain where > some differences may show up from m-theory, though. > > For all that, string theory has provided at least one answer in an > area where other theories, as I understand them, have fallen short. > It's not much, but there it is. It deals with the problem of > Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of black holes. > > Bekenstein, in 1970 or so, as a grad student of Wheeler (Princeton), > suggested the idea that black holes might have entropy - a lot of > entropy, in fact. He was motivated by the idea that the entropy of a > closed system always increases. He reasoned that if you drop a bunch > of disorganized matter into a black hole, it just 'disappears' leaving > a highly ordered vacuum, so to speak. The entropy of the black hole > would certainly have to increase to account for the lost entropy > elsewhere. He then drew on Hawking's demonstration that the area of > the event horizon of a black hole always increases in any physical > interaction. Bekenstein felt this suggested a link in that the > greater the total area of the event horizon of a black hole should be > directly proportional to the entropy of that black hole -- in other > words, that the area would be a precise measure of its entropy. > > Most physicists didn't much like this idea, at the time. Black holes > were thought to be among the most ordered objects in the universe. > With only mass, charge, and spin to account for, a black hole just > didn't seem to have enough defining characteristics to account for a > lot of entropy (or much of any, at all.) More, Hawking felt that > Bekenstein's proposal was nothing more than coincidence -- Hawking > pointed out that if one takes the law of thermodynamics seriously in > this case, that assigning entropy to the area of the event horizon > would require a temperature to be assigned, as well. Which would > require that black holes radiate! Hawking felt simply that when > matter carrying entropy fell into a black hole, the entropy was simply > lost. So much for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But Hawking was > okay with that.. for a time. > > But in 1974 I think, Hawking considered the idea of the frantic mess > of virtual particles in empty space, with particles and their > antiparticles errupting and annihilating one another. Near the black > hole, it's possible that one of these pairs falls into the event > horizon, never to be seen again. The other actually gets a boost of > energy from the gravitational energy of the black hole and gets shot > outward. Black holes actually radiate! > > Hawking calculated the temperature that a far-off observer would > associate with the emitted radiation, thus produced, and discovered > that it is given simply by the strength of the graviational field at > the event horizon and in exactly the amount that prosaic > thermodynamics would suggest from Berkenstein's entropy proposal. > > A black hole has entropy... and temperature. And the gravitational > laws of black holes are little other that just another way of > rewriting the law of thermodynamics, even if in a highly exotic > gravitational context. Just another of those confirming arches one > finds in physics, linking strongly different domains. > > Anyway, there was still the problem of what disorder?? Black holes > appear to be very simple objects. So what's the source of the > disorder they must have? On this, Hawking was silent. Hawking was > able to finesse a partial union of quantum mechanics and general > relativity to yield his limited results, that black holes *do* > radiate. But he wasn't able to go further. This lack of a > microscopic insight became the Berkenstein-Hawking entropy problem of > black holes. > > String theory, by way of Strominger and Vafa in 1996, and building on > Susskind and Sen, put out a paper called 'Microscopic Origin of the > Beckenstein-Hawking Entropy.' They were able to use string theory to > precisely calculate the associated entropy of certain kinds of black > holes. They meticulously wove a precise combination of branes into > these black holes and were able to exactly predict the characteristics > from that process. They could sum and thus demonstrate the various > observable properties, from the ground up so to speak. And they could > compare these with the entropy predicted by Bekenstein and Hawking. > Perfect agreement! > > So there's one modest success. > > An insight _may be_ that black holes and elementary particles are just > different phases of fundamental vibrational string pattern
From: T Wake on 27 Oct 2006 07:57 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:cig2k21n4glg5hjd190dv20ioua766aiuh(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:23:23 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In the US, until an item is deemed to be a risk to national >>> security, the businesses who make, sell, and trade that item >>> are NOT under government control. This a difference between >>> how business is run in the US and socialistic based economies. >> >>Bwahahahahahahahaha ! >> > > You're an idiot. You act as if you know something that others do > not, when in reality you know little, nothing, or even less than > nothing. Oh no. There goes another irony meter.
From: T Wake on 27 Oct 2006 08:33 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehso6p$8qk_008(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Dg80h.5$e06.363(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>In article <ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>In article <iLOdnYf2fLhzz6LYRVnyuw(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ehndut$8qk_001(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>>>>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the >>>>>>>>best >>>>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>>>>> >>>>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow >>>>>>some >>>>>>one >>>>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually >>>>>>incorrect >>>>>>because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything in > the >>>>>>scientific method. >>>>> >>>>> No. No matter how the concept is refined, the lab method worked. >>>>> I can then use that method to predict similar setups. That's >>>>> how science works. >>>> >>>>I know how science works. >>>> >>>>We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what >>>>happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your >>>>understanding of what you are observing. >>>> >>>>A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new >>>>(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that >>>>happens > we >>>>[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*. >>>> >>>>That is how science works. >>> >>>I know. What you seem to omit is that the old method will still >>>continue to work within the range of the old measurements. >>> >>>I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >>>work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. >> >>Crude? For nearly all macroscopic situations we encounter Newtonian >>physics is good to 7-8 decimal places or better, far more accurate >>than the input parameters typically are. Not so crude:-) > > Yea. Thanks. It was the only word I could produce to make the > contrast. :-) >> >>>I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use >>>because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. >> >>It is even worse than bad form, under most circumstances it is pompous >>twittery. > > <GRIN> > >> You know, you've the kind of people who enjoy saying "all >>you know is wrong, I know better, nah nah nananah...". You would >>think they should grow out of this by the end of adolescence but some >>people never do. > > I had my virtual baseball bat that stopped a little bit; alas > it was never a permanent cure. > >> >>Sure, Newtonian physics is not exact. It is an approximation, and a >>damn good one over a broad range of physical parameters. Calling it >>"wrong" is stupid. > > Thanks for the clarification. I'm not only hip deep in allygaters, > I think they're raining down. Just as an aside, who said Newtonian Gravity was "wrong?"
From: MooseFET on 27 Oct 2006 10:11
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message > news:1161915355.684234.301420(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > [....] > >> What exactly are you insisting they plan for, that includes nuclear > >> power? > > > > Speaking for myself and certainly not BAH: > > > > I think there is enough evidence that global warming is a real issue to > > make it worth looking for other ways to power stuff. Atomic power > > should be looked at from that point of view at least. > > I absolutely agree. She was indicting the Democrats for not dealing with > terrorism-related issues, and implied that nuclear power was somehow > involved in that mix. It, sort of is, mixed into the subject because of the energy issues. If the US did not depend so much on oil from the middle east, there would be less trouble there. The US is in effect funding the terrorists when it buys oil. > > Currently the US imports a lot of oil to run cars and the like. You > > can make automotive fuel from other things but the energy to do so is > > more than you get back. In a market where energy cost money, you will > > continue to use oil. > > See my other post on this. Nuclear is not the answer--it will not make > energy cheap enough to make coal-to-liquids technology (a la South Africa) > economically competitive with oil. You saw "will not". Do you mean forever? Obviously the current design doesn't make energy cheap enough. We don't know however what research may find. This is a good reason for funding the basic sciences. > In any case, you still need the carbon > (until someone comes up with a reasonable way to use H2), and that will have > to come from some sort of finite resource like coal, natural gas, or oil, > and it will not especially help the global climatic situation. Right now the US burns coal. Coal has a lot of carbon when compared to natural gas. Some improvement in the carbon emissions can be had by turning the carbon in coal into methane before using it as a fuel. I think the answer isn't likely to be hydrogen. It is more likely that some other technology will be the answer. An example could be aluminum. Aluminum produces a lot of energy when it oxidizes. Basically the process turns it back into bauxite which with a lot of energy can be turned back into metal. Zinc also has this propoerty. I could see the automobile being run from a primary battery if that battery was easy enough to replace and cheap enough. People would adapt to the fact that you no longer pump fuel into the car. > > Eric Lucas |