Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 27 Oct 2006 14:21 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:yir0h.17056$TV3.1877(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ehsnps$8qk_006(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>Only bin Laden has attacked us. >> >> I see. Your approach is to fix the pimple on the skin and >> not the disease that caused the pimple. I don't work that >> way. > > No, your approach is to cut off the head, to make sure the acne is cured. > Or more accurately, cut some one else's head off and hope the acne is cured but if it isn't at least it can be argued they can't see it.
From: T Wake on 27 Oct 2006 14:22 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:rpa4k25bqrqiaqrnhnn78kg173me1eek8q(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:33:30 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >> >>Just as an aside, who said Newtonian Gravity was "wrong?" >> > > Did anyone call it "wrong?" Someone did call it "perfect." Well, in the snipped bits there is an ongoing debate about how it is wrong to say Newtonian Gravity is wrong and I was unsure who said that. I assume you don't know either then?
From: John Larkin on 27 Oct 2006 14:43 On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:22:46 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:rpa4k25bqrqiaqrnhnn78kg173me1eek8q(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:33:30 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Just as an aside, who said Newtonian Gravity was "wrong?" >>> >> >> Did anyone call it "wrong?" Someone did call it "perfect." > >Well, in the snipped bits there is an ongoing debate about how it is wrong >to say Newtonian Gravity is wrong and I was unsure who said that. > >I assume you don't know either then? > In this prison riot? Nope. John
From: mmeron on 27 Oct 2006 22:27 In article <ehso6p$8qk_008(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >In article <Dg80h.5$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> > <BIG 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. > Well, it is not permanent but still useful. Doesn't it say in the instructions "apply as often as needed"?:-) >> >>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. > So I noticed. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: MooseFET on 27 Oct 2006 22:38
Eeyore wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > > John Larkin wrote: > > [....] > > > What reactor could do that? Even a design as stupid as Chernobyl, > > > blowing up in the worst possible way (which it did) > > > > You are showing a bit of a lack of imagination here. The guys a > > Chernobyl were do an "experiment" where they were attempting to control > > the reactor in the "no mans land" of the low output end of the range. > > The carbon moderated reactors are dynamically unstable at the level. > > The output oscillates wildly and the controllers were trying to > > manually force it to be stable. When the large overshoot happened, > > they would have closed the throttle If Chernobyl had been done on > > purpose, the fire would have been much harder to put out. > > " the control rods were designed with graphite tips, which when initially > inserted into the reactor, speed up the reaction, instead of slowing or > stopping it. This design flaw caused the first explosion of the Chernobyl > accident, when the emergency button was pressed to stop the reactor. " > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK Form: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html **** The immediate cause of the Chernobyl accident was a mismanaged electrical-engineering experiment. Engineers with no knowledge of reactor physics were interested to see if they could draw electricity from the turbine generator of the Number 4 reactor unit to run water pumps during an emergency when the turbine was no longer being driven by the reactor but was still spinning inertially. The engineers needed the reactor to wind up the turbine; then they planned to idle it to 2.5 percent power. Unexpected electrical demand on the afternoon of April 29 delayed the experiment until eleven o'clock that night. When the experimenters finally started, they felt pressed to make up for lost time, so they reduced the reactor's power level too rapidly. That mistake caused a rapid buildup of neutron-absorbing fission by products in the reactor core, which poisoned the reaction. To compensate, the operators withdrew a majority of the reactor's control rods, but even with the rods withdrawn, they were unable to increase the power level to more than 30 megawatts, a low level of operation at which the reactor's instability potential is at its worst and that the Chernobyl plant's own safety rules forbade. ****** |